Envirobutalists

[Willinois]

Every time there's a proposal that would help improve our environmental quality of life we see the emergence of a strange animal I like to call the Envirobutalist. These are people who say they support the environment but they always have a reason why they can't support whatever action is being proposed that day.

We saw this during the recent debate about the clean energy agreement in Springfield. I heard sentiments like, "I support wind power but not if it will cost us any money." "I support cleaning the air but not in this case because I don't like the tactics effectively used by the Sierra Club."

During election season the envirobutalists sound a lot like environmentalists. They're nice to listen to but they won't be there when you need them. The trick is to watch their record and ask for specific commitments on the issues. The devil is in the details.

Something reposted from my blog: http://www.thereisaway.us/2007/03/envirobutalists.html

There's also a story today related to the clean energy plan I mentioned in Springfield Illinois. The public utility will become the largest user of wind power in the state of Illinois.
http://www.sj-r.com/sections/news/stories/109396.asp

[hatrack]

1. It's really very simple: people will do whatever it takes to protect the environment . . .

Provided, of course, that it doesn't cost them any money or inconvenience them in any way at all.

[kestrel91316]

2. Hm. Maybe you should speak for yourself..............

Some of us have been making sacrifices for years......

[hatrack]

3. Maybe I should have said, "In general, people will . . . "

In addition, your knowledge about who I am, what I've done and the choices I've made because of these issues approaches zero.

[july302001]

4. huh?

Kestrel,

What makes you think that hatrack isn't doing his/her share?

I enjoy hatrack's posts on this forum. They're quite informative and help me keep up with a number of issues. I think hatrack is already making a positive contribution.

I'll bet that hatrack already does actual things like driving a fuel-efficient car or riding the bus. Maybe he/she just doesn't feel obligated to share all the personal details here.

Mmmmm'kay?

(By the way, I don't know hatrack from Adam. I just like hatrack's posts).

[razzleberry]

5. the sincere, are very few.

I get tired of....

"becuse I want my grant renewed,
I'm going to tell you about the
--> insert problem here <--
enviornmental issue",

that seems to be the standard of today.

edited for spellimg

[hunter]

6. Wow, what a deal.

I'd quit the Sierra Club over something like that, but I already did.

It pains me to see Kermit the Frog selling Fords too.



The gall of that fibbing little amphibian to claim he's green....

[Willinois]

7. My utility

went from using 100% coal power to becoming the largest wind supplier in the state and it will institute an aggressive energy efficiency and conservation program. I don't understand why such a big step forward would make anyone want to quit the Sierra Club.

[hunter]

8. I dunno, reading that article you linked to...

It all smells a little rotten. Too much "apparently" and stuff.

There are other ways to get wind generation installed that don't leave you with that queasy feeling in the pit of your stomach. That contract wasn't signed in blood, was it? And I trust there was no print so small and obtuse that you'd need a magnifying glass and a law degree to read it? And I'll bet actual people were named in that contract, and not just The Sierra Club as a legal entity. Hmmmmmmm.....

I suppose the Sierra Club figured the coal plant was going to be built anyways, so they might as well get their share, with windpower and stuff, but I also realize I'm much too cynical at times, especially about Illinois politics and Florida based corporations.

[Willinois]

9. Springfield will now comply with the Kyoto treaty.

That's pretty remarkable, especially for a conservative town in the midwest. The contract is between the Sierra Club and public utility. It was passed by the city council. Part of what made it work is that they're shutting down one of their old coal power plants that polluted at high levels. The agreement is making them pollute significantly less than they otherwise would be. I don't know what you mean by "their share" since the Sierra Club doesn't financially benefit from the wind power contract.

The rest of what you wrote is really too vague to respond to. It sounds like your objections have more to do with past experiences than anything in this agreement. If you really want to know the details beyond what's in the article above you can read this:
http://www.thereisaway.us/2006/07/cwlp_sierra_club_agreement.html

[hunter]

10. I've lived in Illinois. Politics there is always interesting.

I may be unrealistic, but building new coal fired power plants is not acceptable to me. It's like smoking, we'd be much better off quitting coal. Building new coal plants only prolongs the danger.