A recent New York Times article detailed Sierra Club troubles at the national level. It focused on a controversy concerning whether the Club’s mission included social justice as well as environmental issues. The article quotes Michale Brune, a former Sierra Executive Director, stating that “we can’t defend the environment by shutting ourselves up in a big, green box labeled ‘environmental issues.’”
The
current controversy at the Sierra Club brings to mind that, in 2004, there was
a fight on whether the Sierra Club should advocate limits on immigration to the
U.S. The argument was that people living in the U.S. pollute more than people
living elsewhere. The main advocate of this was Richard Lamm, a former
Democratic governor of Colorado. He led a dissident slate in an election to the
Sierra Club's board of directors. The slate lost. If it had won, I believe the
Sierra Club would have splintered.
One
difference between then and now is that the earlier effort to broaden the
Sierra Club policy issues came from people who were not in charge of the Club.
The leadership of the Club was then strongly against taking a position on
immigration. The current broadening of the Sierra Club mission to issues
falling under the rubric of Environmental Justice and Democracy is an
initiative of the current leadership.
In
response to the New York Times article, the current Executive Director,
Loren Blackford, who replaced her controversial predecessor, Ben Jealous, who
was fired “for cause,” posted a rebuttal on the Sierra Club’s
website. It was
not entirely persuasive.
Ms.
Blackford rightly indicates, though, that much of the Sierra Club’s political
impact is at the local level. Given the number of local chapters and groups
that comprise the Sierra Club nationwide, it is hard to judge its overall
effectiveness. However, recent developments in the San Francisco Bay Area
indicate some portending trouble.
According
to the Alameda Post, mountain bikers have gained seats
on the San Francisco Bay Chapter’s Executive Committee and have remove
long-time environmentalists from various Chapter committees. The immediate
issue is whether trails on land administered by the East Bay Municipal Utility
District should allow off-road biking. As indicated in the article, organized
groups can take over a Sierra Club Chapter in usually low-turnout elections.
Also, the listings
on the outings meetup site and activities
calendar for the
San Francisco Bay Chapter suggest that there is another controversy. Most of
the hikes listed on the meetup site since sometime in February include the
following notice: “**PLEASE NOTE: *This is not a Sierra Club-sponsored hike.
*** This hike is listed as a convenience to members who might be interested. To
join, you must sign the waiver at our meeting point.” Clicking on outings on the
online calendar often leads to the following notice: “The activity you have
chosen is not sponsored nor administered by the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club
has no information about the planning of these activities and makes no
representations or warranties about the quality, safety, supervision or
management of such activities. Click here to continue to activity details.”
Many of
these hikes are listed by a long-time hike leader who is listed as the chair of
the hiking section for the Chapter. The hikes he leads with the disclaimer are
similar or identical to the ones he has led for years which were listed as Sierra club hikes. It is not clear what is
going on here. There may be issues concerning liability raised by Sierra Club
lawyers or an insurance company or there may be disagreements concerning what
type of outings the Chapter should sponsor. Currently, I would note, there is
no such disclaimer for hikes listed by the Sierra Club hiking group in the
Washington, DC area.
As a
long-time member of the Sierra Club, I have generally supported the club’s
environmental goals and have participated on both coasts in many hiking outings
(and a long time ago, served as a hike leader for the Sierra Club hiking group
for the Washington, DC area). I have not, though, agreed with every policy
position the Sierra Club has advocated but thought it important to support the
Club as a counterweight to powerful interests on the other side of
environmental issues.
Moreover,
with respect to local hikes, I have noticed that the Sierra Club hiking groups
for the Washington, DC area and the San Francisco Bay Area have not fully
recovered from the pause in activity due to the pandemic. There continues to be
a reluctance to organize carpools to hiking locations, which is somewhat
peculiar for an environmental group, and there is a reduced list of activities,
particularly noticeable in the San Francisco Bay Area because of the number of
hikes it used to list for each weekend.
The
reduction in hiking activities also impacts Sierra Club membership. For
example, when James Watt was Secretary of the Interior during the Reagan
Administration, he unwittingly was a great recruiter for the Sierra Club. One
hike leader at the time for the DC area, Water Wells, decided to lead monthly
Sunday afternoon hikes in Rock Creek Park. These hikes did not entail long
drives nor getting up early and were not physically very challenging. Part of
Walter’s goal, as I recall, was to get new members involved in the Sierra Club
so that they would not let their membership lapse in the coming years.
I want the
Sierra Club to be successful now, especially with the current Administration’s
assault on the environment. There does not appear to be the surge in membership
that happened during the Reagan Administration. Fortunately, there are other
organizations that are fighting for the environment, but the Sierra Club most
likely is losing effectiveness because of its internal problems. I hope that
the current leadership of the Sierra Club can admit that there are internal
problems that need to be addressed.
