Major Environmental Group Endorses Bernie

[azmom]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/bernie-sanders-climate-change-2016-20150801

"We're seeing a lot of speeches from candidates, but Bernie has an incredibly strong track record and there's a lot of credibility there. He's also willing to say 'no' where some other candidates aren't," Erich Pica, the president of Friends of the Earth Action, said in an interview.

Many environmentalists fear that Clinton's cozy relationship with Wall Street and silence on some environmental issues may be a sign that she won't go far enough at a time when aggressive action is needed to stem the tide of global warming. And they see Sanders as a more-steadfast environmental champion.

Unlike Clinton, Sanders is on record saying that he supports a carbon tax, opposes Arctic offshore drilling, has voiced support for a ban on fracking in Vermont, supports the divestment movement, and opposes Keystone XL.

[onehandle]

1. The Sierra Club is a thousand times bigger and is already leaning towards Hillary.

“With the implementation of the Clean Power Plan and critical climate negotiations in Paris on the horizon, climate action will be a major theme in the 2016 election. This election, Secretary Clinton has the opportunity to build on her strong environmental record, bring real leadership to the climate fight, and lay out her plan to grow the American clean energy economy.”"

http://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2015/04/sierra-club-statement-hillary-clinton-s-campaign-announcement

But I will say that Friends of the Earth, which I have contributed to, is more appropriate for Senator Sanders.

[HerbChestnut]

3. That's from April

Long before most people had knew about Sanders. I'm not saying they won't come out and support her, but I think there's a decent chance they could end up supporting Bernie instead.

[onehandle]

5. 'Long before most people had knew about Sanders'

Do you seriously think that Friends of the Earth was not aware of Senator Sanders?

LOL!

Thanks. That's hilarious.

Also The Sierra Club did not endorse Obama until after Hillary conceded. They endorsed him over McCain, not Hillary.

[HerbChestnut]

6. He announced his presidential campaign on April 30th...

Which is after that article had been written. I think it's a valid point.

[Divernan]

20. The article WAS dated April 1st, and in any case, you didn't

deserve the snarky ridicule response you received. Welcome to DU. I've been here since 2002, and I've never seen near the nastiness which is currently directed at those supporting Sanders.

Edited to clarify, you were absolutely right, the article was dated April 1st, and the Snarkmeister was dead wrong, but don't hold your breath waiting for an apology. Thanks to bluedigger, Post 28, for the clarification.

[HerbChestnut]

26. Hi there, and appreciated...

Though check the date of the statement by the Sierra Club. April 12th

[bananas]

36. April 30th: "The Sierra Club has not yet begun any endorsement process for the 2016 Presidential..."

http://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2015/04/sierra-club-statement-campaign-announcement-bernie-sanders

Sierra Club Statement on Campaign Announcement by Bernie Sanders
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Contact:
Trey Pollard [phone] or [e-mail]

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders announced he would officially begin his campaign for President of the United States.

The Sierra Club has not yet begun any endorsement process for the 2016 Presidential election.

In response, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune released the following statement:

"With Senator Sanders entering the Democratic primary, Americans can be sure that this election will include a robust and healthy discussion of fundamentally important challenges like tackling the climate crisis, getting big corporate money out of politics, and investing to grow our clean energy economy. On behalf of the Sierra Club’s 2.4 million members and supporters, we welcome Senator Sanders to the 2016 race and look forward to the debate on these issues in the months to come.”

[HerbChestnut]

37. Well that is excellent

And pretty much negates the other link. Nice find.

[MissDeeds]

27. +1000

The nastiness is off the charts, which speaks to their desperation. Bernie is running on his record. Their candidate is trying to run from hers.

[beam me up scottie]

39. "Bernie is running on his record. Their candidate is trying to run from hers."

That is awesome, can I use it?

[MissDeeds]

40. Absolutely!

[beam me up scottie]

41. Thanks!

[GoneFishin]

49. Not only is it a valid point, but it applies to large numbers of other groups and voters who

simply did not Bernie was running, while at the same time most assumed Hillary would run.

[bluedigger]

28. Your lack of comprehension is hilarious.

The Sierra Club article you posted was from April, before Sanders had announced his candidacy. The FOE release is from today. I expect the Sierra Club will follow the directions of it's big money donors, as usual.

[99th_Monkey]

7. The Sierra Club has been subsumed by big money interests

Many would argue that Sierra Club has sold-out to the point
that it's part of the problem, not the solution. So I guess it
makes sense they might lean towards Hillary.

Why The Sierra Club No Longer Deserves Your Trust
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/why-the-sierra-club-no-lo_b_611447.html

How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry
http://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/

Sierra Club (between 2007 and 2010) clandestinely accepted $25 million from the fracking industry, with most of the donations coming from Chesapeake Energy.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2012/03/26/breaking-sierra-club

[L0oniX]

9. Well ...no wonder they are for Hillary.

[azmom]

34. Look at what Friends of the Earth says about elections

Why would cleaner elections matter for the planet? In poll after poll, voters say that they care about the environment, but it’s hard to get elected officials to take the lead on and support environmental legislation. Environmental issues often end up taking a back seat to the political priorities proffered by big corporate donors. And by the same token, politicians who are the biggest recipients of polluter money often go to great lengths to quash pro-environment bills. Getting big money out of elections would help give environmental issues a fair shake in government. -


See more at: http://www.foe.org/projects/economics-for-the-earth/election-financing#.dpuf

[rwsanders]

10. I've been a long time contributer, but I've been thinking about dropping them.

If they endorse Hillary, I'm done. It may be time to let them know beforehand.

[rhett o rick]

44. Most likely the leadership has been co opted. Stay and fight for a environmentally friendly

leadership. It's like the Democratic Party, the leadership has been co opted, bhe grassroots are still good Democrats

[Divernan]

46. Me too - I'm calling them next week.

[CanadaexPat]

51. Aren't they anti-immigration also?

[artislife]

14. He announced April 29th

They were probably thinking no one else would challenge.

The earliest I can find him as a likely candidate is April 26th

[Cleita]

16. *snort*

They issued an identical press release about Bernie Sanders. They aren't endorsing anyone but welcoming their candidacy.

[rhett o rick]

45. The Sierra Club has long ago been co opted by corporations. Of course they would

choose Clinton.

[99th_Monkey]

2. Awesomeness! "a more-steadfast environmental champion" <- That's Bernie! nt

[Scruffy1]

4. Friends of the Earth is an important endorsement.

Personally, I consider them one of the few "environmental" groups that hasn't sold out to corporate America. Their membership is much smaller, but I think younger and more active. I am member, neither that young or that active at my age.

[L0oniX]

8. I can't wait for the Hillarious Clintonistas to call Bernie an eco terrorist.

[SoapBox]

11. Oh ya...3, 2, 1, zero.

Go Bernie!

Go Team Bernie!

[George II]

12. I never heard of them.

[artislife]

15. And???

[bluedigger]

29. Not surprised.

[beam me up scottie]

42. If I was pretending to care about the environment I wouldn't brag about that.

[kenn3d]

13. Here's the Washington Post article on the endorsement

Sanders to win support of environmental group that sees Clinton ‘equivocating’

The political arm of Friends of the Earth, which bills itself as the world's largest grass-roots environmental network, will throw its support behind the senator from Vermont at an event in Concord and then join him at a town-hall meeting in Manchester, according to its president, Erich Pica.
...
Pica pointed to the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline as an issue emblematic of the differences his group sees between Sanders and Clinton. Sanders has been steadfast in his opposition to the project, which environmentalists see as unnecessary and dangerous. Clinton, meanwhile, hedged this week, saying she wouldn't offer an up-or-down position until she's president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/01/sanders-to-win-support-of-environmental-group-that-sees-clinton-equivocating/

[elleng]

17. I guess they don't read much.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/06/18/pope-francis-encyclical-clean-energy-technology-campaign-column/28859409/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/23/3683536/omalley-climate-change-isis/

We should incentivize production of clean energy—it's better for our environment & consumers.

- Martin O'Malley https://martinomalley.com/climate/iowa/

"Thus far, no other candidate has said they're going to make climate change their top priority.

Martin O'Malley has not only done that, but he has outlined a plan that would enact emissions reductions in line with what scientists say is necessary to slow global climate change—worldwide emissions reductions of 40-70 percent by 2050—and he's the only candidate to do that, too. His plan would phase out fossil-fueled power plants altogether, by midcentury. Along with the USA Today op-ed, he released a white paper further outlining his scheme."

‪#?OMalley2016‬ ‪#?NewLeadership‬ ‪#?CleanEnergy‬

from Martin O'Malley, on energy independence

Today I visited Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy in Council Bluffs. We discussed the products and processes around refining ethanol, and the importance of becoming truly energy independent. The CEO said to me, "These are steady jobs, and for our area some of the best jobs. That's important for new generations."
I agree. We have to accelerate a transition right now to renewable energy sources and create jobs for a renewable energy future.
Read my plan: http://omly.us/climate-iowa

Martin O'Malley on Energy, in Iowa. Video

Two weeks ago, I released my plan to power the U.S. with 100% renewable energy by 2050. This week, I'm traveling to Iowa, which has been a model state in meeting the climate challenge with a jobs agenda. Check out a quick video from my last trip and be sure to keep an eye out for more to come later this week.

https://www.facebook.com/MartinOMalley?fref=nf

The Presidential Candidate With a Plan to Run the US on 100% Clean Energy
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/martin-omalley-clean-energy-candidate


I think I'll send this to Friends of Earth Action.

[angrychair]

30. I don't hate MoM

But I can't get around how he sold out Maryland to the gambling industry for a quick buck. I just don't think it's in the state's best interest.
I DO NOT believe that things like gambling, drinking, prostitution and pot should be illegal but I don't think that states should be balancing their budgets (or trying to at least) on it. We should be more focused on building a vibrate, diverse and well-educated workforce of tradespeople, scientists and engineers and artist. A well-maintained and multi-faceted transportation infrastructure. These things bring prosperty and long-term returns to a society.

[elleng]

33. I'm glad you don't hate him.We have/had the best public schools in the country when he was governor,

and tho I don't like gambling, there was a huge amount of discussion here on the subject. HE didn't like the time it took from him OR the fact of gambling himself.

O’Malley arrived in Annapolis in 2007, after four years of acrimonious State House debate over gambling. His predecessor, Robert L.?Ehrlich Jr. (R), and Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) had pushed relentlessly to legalize slot machines; House Speaker Michael E.?Busch (D-Anne Arundel) and his chamber resisted.

Proponents of slots argued that Marylanders were taking their money to play in the surrounding states of Delaware, West Virginia and Pennsylvania, where the machines were legal.

O’Malley offered a compromise that called for putting the issue to voters on the 2008 ballot. A ballot measure was approved, authorizing slots in five locations around the state, and O’Malley expressed hope that the legislature could move on to other priorities.

Before long, gambling advocates started pushing for a sixth location, in Prince George’s County, and for Las Vegas-style table games, such as blackjack and roulette, that had been approved in other states. O’Malley reluctantly agreed to call a special legislative session in 2012 to act on those proposals.

“This is not so much about what we want as what we need to get behind us,” he said at the time. “I don’t know a single member of the General Assembly who ran for office wanting to deal with the issue of gaming year in and year out. For crying out loud, aren’t we all tired of this by now?”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/gov-omalley-brought-casinos-to-maryland-but-that-doesnt-mean-he-likes-them/2014/09/02/4a37050a-2eba-11e4-994d-202962a9150c_story.html

[Vattel]

50. O'Malley's record on the environment is pretty good. But when he says that

"Together, we brought back the health of the waters of the Chesapeake Bay." [Iowa, 4/10/2015], he is exaggerating. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation gave the health of the Chesapeake Bay a "D-plus" last year, only slightly higher than the "D" grade it gave just before O'Malley became governor. From the Baltimore Sun:

"We're very happy with many actions that the O'Malley administration took," said Karla Raettig, executive director of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters. "We were sometimes frustrated."

The biggest frustration, several environmentalist say: the O'Malley administration's delay of rules to limit phosphorous runoff. The rules were intended to limit how much chicken manure farmers may use as fertilizer. When it rains, the runoff washes phosphorus into the bay.

After years of considering the rules, which are opposed by farmers, O'Malley waited until after November's election to begin the process of implementing them.

Governor Hogan, in one of his first acts in office, suspended the rules days before they took effect. He then reached a deal with Democratic legislators that would keep much of O'Malley's proposal in place, while delaying the implementation for some farmers.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-omalley-speech-facts-20150418-story.html#page=1

[JaneyVee]

18. LOL.

Good endorsement, bad article. Hillary doesn't support carbon pricing? She campaigned on it AND WROTE THE CAP AND TRADE BILL. Not to mention, Bernie doesn't even have a climate proposal. None.

[Cheese Sandwich]

19. Cap and trade is a scam for Wall Street to make money by trading carbon credits.

Please keep this in mind at all times.

[JaneyVee]

21. Keep in mind: Bernie supports it as well.

[Cheese Sandwich]

22. You are wrong. Bernie Sanders is against cap and trade.

He supports taxing carbon at the point of extraction.

[JaneyVee]

24. That must be why he voted YES on it...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00145

[Cheese Sandwich]

25. I would say maybe he voted for it as part of an overall package

I have no idea what you linked there. The cloture motion on the Boxer Amendment to the Lieberman bill? What is that?

But as a first choice he is against cap-and-trade. In the major climate change bill that he introduced with Barbara Boxer he supports a carbon tax, not cap-and-trade.

Which you can also see him discuss here at about 29 minutes into this Vox interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=S5vOKKMipSA&t=29m11s


You can read about his support for a carbon tax here:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/why-we-need-a-carbon-tax


And here is his statement explaining his vote on that Lieberman-Warner cap and trade bill that you referenced:

While the Lieberman-Warner cap and trade bill is a step forward, it goes nowhere near far enough in creating the policies that the scientific community says must be developed if we are to avert a planetary catastrophe. It is also lacking in paving the way for the transformation of our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy technologies. Here are some of my concerns with the Lieberman-Warner bill:

First, virtually all of the scientific evidence tells us that, at the least, we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050 if we stand a chance to reverse global warming. Lieberman-Warner, under the very best projections, provides a 66 percent reduction.

Second, this legislation allows major polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases for free until 2036. In fact, old-fashioned dirty coal burning plants could still be built during this period. That’s wrong. The “right to pollute” should not be given away for up to 24 years. Further, in calculating emission reductions, the bill relies much too heavily on “offsets,” a process which is difficult to verify and which could significantly undermine the actual emissions caps.

Third, this bill provides a massive amount of corporate welfare to industries which have been major emitters of greenhouse gasses while requiring minimal performance standards and accountability. According to a report by Friends of the Earth, the auction and allocation processes of the bill could generate up to $3.6 trillion dollars over a 38 year period. While a large fund exists in the bill for “low carbon technology,” there is no guaranteed allocation for such important technologies as wind, solar, geo-thermal, hydrogen or for energy efficiency. But, there is a guaranteed allotment of $324 billion for the coal industry through an “Advanced Coal and Sequestration program” and $232 billion for the auto industry for “Advanced Technology Vehicles.”

http://grist.org/article/global-warming-and-political-will/

[dreamnightwind]

47. Thank you

And the "point of extraction" is excellent. Taxing consumers is also effective, as it insentivizes conservation, but it is highly regressive, many poorer people pay a higher percentage of their income on transportation costs, and they are already hurting. Taxation at the point of extraction is something I rarely see anyone advocate, which frustrates me no end.

The extraction industry is literally drowning in profits, if extraction were a lot more expensive for them, perhaps they would be more open to alternative energy strategies, or they could just go out of business, fine with me either way.

[Cheese Sandwich]

23. I'm not sure how major FOE really is but...

There is one much more major group 350.org that is clearly closely aligned with Sanders.

I don't think they issue endorsements but maybe they should.

But their founder Bill McKibben has endorsed Bernie.

[saidsimplesimon]

31. Thanks azmom

I've worked with the Sierra Club on issues like storing nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain and the KXL. When we disagree, I go my way.

[azmom]

32. As a latina, I appreciate Friends of the Earth

Stance on environmental justice.

We understand that the ways we interact with the environment and the burden of pollution we bear are closely tied to class, race, gender, age and other forms of identity. Groups confronting racial and economic injustice are often targeted by polluting industries and others who harm the environment for profit. Achieving strong and lasting environmental protection depends on challenging forms of oppression that fuel and enable environmental destruction.

- See more at: http://www.foe.org/about-us/what-we-stand-for/anti-oppression#.dpuf

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

35. I'm shocked! ..., NOT!!

Take that!

[beam me up scottie]

38. Kicking and highly recommending.

And not just because of the Hillary supporters showing their hineys all over this thread.

[dsc]

43. I find something missing here

when the AFT endorsed Hillary many virtual trees were killed telling us just how awful their process was. We heard that it was rigged. We heard that asking a bit over a thousand teachers wasn't enough. And on and on. Here not one word about what the process even was. Now, I will be consistent. This organization should get to endorse who they want using whatever method of deciding that they want.

[dreamnightwind]

48. An environmental group is not very similar to a labor union

Those teachers deserve a voice in who their union endorses. Some NGO's poll their members before making policy recommendations and candidate endorsements, some don't, members have the option of joining other advocacy groups (unlike teachers, AFT is their union) if they don't like it. I have no idea if members were polled by FOE, but the comparison is a stretch.

[dsc]

52. they did get a say

there was a poll. What they didn't get was a minority veto of the union's decision. By your logic unions shouldn't ever endorse since at least some members will support other candidates.

[dreamnightwind]

55. Not really

They needlessly moved up the usual and agreed-to date of endorsement by months to avoid allowing the rising candidate from the left to get sufficient momentum, nip it in the bud so to speak, polled a very small sample of their members and said "all good, it's HRC!" to get the endorsement for Weingarten's friend Hillary. Not the normal flow of business for that union at all, it was designed to produce a certain result for a certain candidate.

Very nice try at twisting my view to saying what you claimed I was saying. Not even close to what I was saying. The endorsement was NOT a true or fair representation of that union's membership, who should have been granted, as they usually are, a significant period of the primary campaign to vet the candidates.

[dsc]

56. what agreed upon date?

There was no agreed upon date, that is just plain fiction. They also polled over a thousand members. Assuming it was a random sample that isn't a small sample. It is larger than many national polls that we quote continually here. They endorsed in July this time, and in October last time. No contests happen between July and October. Mondale got an endorsement from this union in July when he ran.

[dreamnightwind]

57. Exactly, no contests happen, only campaigning

so no need to endorse early. You had to go back to Mondale for an example? Waiting till October would have been appropriate.

I'm sorry, you are arguing something that may serve your candidate's interest (I don't know who your candidate is) but it in no way serves to best represent the interests of the teachers, who should have been given the benefit of the pre-primary campaign period to form their opinions.

Why endorse now? We don't even know all of the candidates yet, Biden may jump in, and most were not considering Sanders as a real possibilit, but given time that might change.

I read that there was an agreement to not endorse before the fall, not going to hunt for that link but I didn't make it up.

[dsc]

58. you seem to have no problem at all with the enviromental group having endorsed now

so which is it? It is Ok to endorse now or it isn't Ok to endorse now?

[dreamnightwind]

59. I made the point that an environmental group is not like the teacher's union

but apparently you ignored that and insist that they have similar obligations to their constituents. The situations are not really all that similar IMO, which I explained in my first reply to you.

[dsc]

60. your argument might have some validity as to whether members should be polled

but it has no validity as to timing. Especially when you use Joe Biden as a reason why the endorsement of the AFT was too early.

[dreamnightwind]

61. Why the hell not? Disagree. - eom

[sabrina 1]

53. Bernie has always been the best on the Environment, he has a fantastic record

and was named a Climate Hawk for his work on this issue.

[LWolf]

54. Good to know. nt