Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

Post Carbon

Sierra Club attacks Lincoln

By Juliet Eilperin

The Sierra Club launched a broad attack against Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) Wednesday for her effort to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases, complete with online banner ads, a radio spot and phone calls to her constituents.

The 60-second radio ad against Lincoln, titled "Blanche's Bailout," is running for two weeks in the Little Rock market and suggests that her co-sponsorship of Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-Alaska)resolution of disapproval of EPA's endangerment finding is merely an attempt to help the oil industry.

"Senator Lincoln needs to dump this Big Oil bailout," said Benn Davenport, Sierra Club Arkansas representative, in a statement. "Arkansans are wondering why Senator Lincoln wants to vote to protect the profits of the richest industry in human history - all the while refusing to vote for a comprehensive climate bill that will create thousands of jobs back home. There are billions of dollars in private investments waiting for Congress to pass a climate and energy bill."

Lincoln has consistently dismissed the criticism of national environmental groups, saying they simply show she is hewing to a centrist path while serving in the Senate. The Sierra Club just finished runnning a two-week radio spot targeting Lincoln, and the League of Conservation Voters has targeted her for defeat this election, naming her to its Dirty Dozen list.

The script of the new Sierra Club radio ad is below:

"First it was the big Wall Street banks. Then the Detroit car companies. Now some in the United States Senate want to bail out Big Oil.

"That's right - an industry that made billions last year. And even as the Arkansas economy is hurting and gas prices are rising, our own Senator Blanche Lincoln is backing this Big Oil bailout.

"Senator Lincoln is co-sponsoring legislation that will protect Big Oil's profits by stalling new fuel economy rules that will cut America's oil use by nearly 2 billion barrels and save consumers nearly $500 a year at the gas pump.

"And if this wasn't bad enough, a major newspaper reports that the plan that Lincoln supports was crafted by lobbyists for Big Oil and other special interests.

"The Senate has been unable to do anything on energy independence and now Senator Lincoln wants to do even less.

"Call Senator Lincoln at 501.375.2993 and ask her to oppose the Big Oil bailout and start making America more energy independent.

By

Juliet Eilperin

 |  March 3, 2010; 6:00 AM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Appealing to climate fence sitters | Next: Wind industry influenced DOE report

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



Folks, please, a little common sense. The man who was the research director for the UN's Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is Phil Jones at England's Anglia University. After emails were hacked or released showing that the raw data was "tricked" to make it appear warmer so they could donations and grants (amounting to millions of dollars) Jones resigned from his post because his unit failed to respond to inquiries about the emails and original records. He claimed that the raw data was "lost," you know, like the dog ate your homework. Since resigning he has admitted that he changed their computer modeling formula to make it appear as though the world's climate was climbing dangerously fast. He also has admitted that the world's climate has NOT WARMED for the past 15 years and, remember, he had the real, true temps. ........... Jones also has admitted that the world's temperatures during the period of 1200-1400 were probably like they are now (warmer than the 1950s). Since there was very little man-made carbon emissions at that time -- fewer people, no cars, no planes, no power plants or factories -- it is clear that the warmer climate was not man-made carbon emissions .............. Stop listening to people who stand to make money if the world buys this crap of "climate change/global warming." That includes the enviro-nuts and those organizations who want to scare you so you'll donate money to their causes. Yeah, I hate to tell you, Al Gore was not telling you the truth -- he just wanted to make millions so he could fly his big private jet ................. And if you were thinking about trading in carbon credits, save your money.

Posted by: RonKH | March 7, 2010 1:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Look at the variety of comments here! Environmentalists quote science and rationality; conservatives spout false patriotism and denial of basic science.
is there anyone on this planet who really believes lobbyists serve no agenda, and that the Sierra Club wants to hurt the US? Yes, there's Snorbert.

Posted by: Watermann | March 4, 2010 10:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Iconoblaster,

I did not speculate about the Sierra Club’s motives; I said that I do not know what they were. Nor, did I demean the motives of the Sierra Club. I did suggest that you should analyze their claims.

MIT is not mentioned anywhere in my post. I don’t know what you were reading when you composed your response.

Posted by: snorbertzangox | March 3, 2010 9:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

snorbertzangox, I read with amusement your convoluted analysis about what you think might be the MOTIVES of the Sierra Club, and I suggest you review your own advice:

"The test is not who pays the bills for the person presenting an argument. The test is the validity of the argument presented. An ad hominem attack means that the attacker has lost the argument."
Posted by: snorbertzangox

Here it is, snorbert: You can't refute the validity of the Sierra Club's argument, so you make the equivalent of an ad hominem attack on "their motives" (although you offer little evidence, and apparently have no clue about what those motives are).

This means that...by your own standards... you have lost the argument.

As for the controversy at issue, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (apparently, according to the comments you are defending, MIT is a hotbed of Marxists intent on destroying the economy of the United States) has recently revised (upward) its projections of global warming... if you are sincere - or even just interested - you can read about it here:

http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/23/mit-doubles-global-warming-projections/

Posted by: Iconoblaster | March 3, 2010 6:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

As a few of you know; the SIERRA CLUB, working closely with church 'environmental' groups and through their proxy group, the COOL CITIES COALITION, has created a tidal wave of global warming hysteria that has swept in stringent regulations that bare little relationship to scientific evidence...

Posted by: Common_Cents1 warming hysteria

--------------------------

Dear Common_Nonsense,

I hear a lot of intelligent discussion about global warming, ice caps melting, glaciers shrinking, climate change and increased precipitation...

but the "HYSTERIA" IS COMING FROM THE RIGHT WING AND STATUS QUO BUSINESS INTERESTS, not from environmentalists.

Posted by: owldog | March 3, 2010 5:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Thanks for saying it, iconoblaster.

Listening to these neurotics, you'd think clear-cut logging would be as american as apple pie, even though it turns forests into anemic deserts and scrublands, and even though selective harvesting is more productive for wood, even in the short run.

Posted by: owldog | March 3, 2010 5:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Iconoblaster,

May I suggest that you carefully analyze the claim that the Sierra Club makes about Senator Lincoln’s intent to protect the profit of the oil companies? The oil companies will be among the last to suffer if the EPA distorts the price of energy with this misdirected boondoggle. The primary sources of carbon dioxide in this country are electric utilities; that will be the first EPA target. Electric utilities also are unable to sell their product, electricity, in Germany. Oil companies produce a fungible and portable product; they can sell in Germany, and Japan and China. Their profits do not require protection from EPA. Only USA citizens would suffer if EPA proceeds.

What reason can Sierra Club have for making such a fabulous claim? I cannot agree that, “their intentions are obvious, honorable and completely reasonable...” Their reasons are not obvious to me.

They certainly are not protecting my interests.

Posted by: snorbertzangox | March 3, 2010 5:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Owldog,
So what if one of the “guys/gals is working for the corporations” . . ..

Posted by: snorbertzangox

-------------------------

to paraphrase sargeant Friday in the 1950s detective series "just the facts, man."

Posted by: owldog | March 3, 2010 5:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

There are some truly hysterical comments below about the purpose and nature of the Sierra Club (eg: "...It is a Marxist political organization that will, if possible, reduce America to third world economic status. That is it's goal...").

These absurd allegations go far beyond hyperbole and straight into paranoid fantasy.

I'm a registered Republican, a former U.S. Marine, a law-abiding, taxpaying ordinary citizen... I'm not a member of the Sierra Club (or any environmental organization), but I have friends who are members of such groups. Even if I disagree about the details of some of their proposals, their intentions are obvious, honorable and completely reasonable... they would like us NOT to trash the planet our children will inherit.

Silly claims about environmentalist NGOs being Marxist front organizations only cause those making the claims to sound as though they are mentally unbalanced.

Posted by: Iconoblaster | March 3, 2010 5:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Not long ago Congress was holding hearings about gas station owners charging too much for gasoline after hurricane Katrina. Now the Sierra Club tries to ban gasoline sales for a zero carbon world and gets rejected. I suppose they may feel less important.

Posted by: rainsong | March 3, 2010 4:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The Sierra Club is a Non-Governmental Organization whose basic reason for existing is to strip wealth from developed nations to send to U.N. controlled entities for redistribution.

It is a Marxist political organization that will, if possible, reduce America to third world economic status. That is it's goal and you don't have to read too far into their stated mission to see that.

The EPA and the EPA are simply tools to get the job done. I strongly suggest that people check out the Earth Summit that was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. There it was spelled out that environmental issues were to be utilized to eliminate private property, since Marxist believe that the state, not individuals, should own property. That is about as un-American as you can get.

Posted by: GeneW | March 3, 2010 4:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Owldog,

So what if one of the “guys/gals is working for the corporations” . . . The test is not who pays the bills for the person presenting an argument. The test is the validity of the argument presented.

An ad hominem attack means that the attacker has lost the argument.

Posted by: snorbertzangox | March 3, 2010 4:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

gsorensen1 | March 3, 2010 3:09 PM
well spoken. As an engineer(though not enviromental), I have never found the environmental organizations to argue on sound science or common sense. I assume that it because they have neither a sound technical arguement nor a message that people want to hear. Now they attack a democrat which would most likely be more amenable to their cause than a republican who demands better science. That would appear to be bad politics for them. I hope that the congress reins in the EPA, restricting what they can unilaterally impose on the people. The EPA should have to show the pay more, do better curve before they can impose new restrictions. This administration favors policies that are not conducive to a prosperous and growing nation.

Posted by: awunsch | March 3, 2010 4:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

You go, Sierra Club! It is almost a guarantee that politicians lining their pockets with money from Big Oil and Big Coal are republicans, but there are also a few Dems like Lincoln in there too. Electing those whose first mission is to protect corporate profits at the expense of the people, needs to end.

Posted by: Pearl77 | March 3, 2010 4:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Being an environmental compliance engineer I am OBLIGATED to STUDY all environmental laws, ..."

Posted by: gsorensen1
-------------------------------

Fancy title.

Isn't you one of the guys/gals working for the corporations, who find loopholes in the laws designed to protect the rest of us against chronic degenerative diseases?

Posted by: owldog | March 3, 2010 3:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

As a few of you know; the SIERRA CLUB, working closely with church 'environmental' groups and through their proxy group, the COOL CITIES COALITION, has created a tidal wave of global warming hysteria that has swept in stringent regulations that bare little relationship to scientific evidence.

The Sixties mania over coal fired power plants and strip mining has created a neurotic lobbying campaign that has been embraced by die hard fanatics bent on crippling our capacity to produce clean energy.

Take away the facade behind carbon trading and you find a lot of SIERRA CLUB 'fat cats' making as much money as coal fired power plants produce CO2.

I don't know how to stop this juggernaut, but using predictions of cataclysmic rises in ocean levels, crop failure, and other climate change has fallen on the hard rocks of factual reality---crop failures predicted in Maine a few years ago, have been replaced by bumper crops recorded for lobsters, blueberries, apples, and maple syrup. The five severe hurricanes never materialized. The warmth promised vanished in a cold May, June, and early July.

Unfortunately, the 'CHURCH LADIES' are true believers and nothing will shake their faith

So what do we do to restore scientific sanity to public policy making?

Posted by: Common_Cents1 | March 3, 2010 3:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Miss Piggy bites the dust.

Bravo Sierra Club. Good Magazine too.

Posted by: owldog | March 3, 2010 3:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Being an environmental compliance engineer I am OBLIGATED to STUDY all environmental laws, the use of substances in materials and products, as well as the effects on health and the environment.

Especially when being presented with proposed legislation, which will always cost us taxpayers dearly, I dig deep to find out the REAL SCIENTIFIC FACTS before reacting to hype and unproven theories.

The first fact, whether you agree with the global warming alarmists or not is that the EPA and the Cap & Trade initiative is directed at "clean" COAL Burning Power Plants to a much higher degree than oil consumption. That is where they can make the most money.

The second fact is that Climatologists (the ones PAID to "prove global warming") have been cooking the books for the last decade, as proven by the Climate Gate Scandal. They were trying to make the case for global warming legislation while we've been in a cooling trend for the last 15 years.

At our peak "man" can only produce 0.5% of CO2 in our environment and all the rest comes from "mother nature". Now add to that an understanding that H2O (yep water vapor) is 100 X more powerful of a greenhouse gas than CO2... Gee we can only produce 0.005% of green house gas on our lovely planet.

Legislation can have no more effect on the CO2 level in our environment than it can have on solar activity on the sun.

Recorded levels of CO2 naturally vary from 340parts per million to 380ppm. Vegitation starts to become endangered at less than 300ppm and all vegitation would cease to exist if the CO2 level in our atmosphere were to drop to 275ppm. Do you REALLY want to reduce CO2?

The credibility of organizations such as the Sierra Club and Greenpeace has sorely diminished in the scientific community over recent years as the truth continues to unfold and "squashed facts" rise to the surface.

Posted by: gsorensen1 | March 3, 2010 3:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I am totally against the raising of taxes for cap & trade, CO2 emissions & climate change. ANY organization who supports these things do not have my vote. All it is is a tax imposed to go into the pocket of the elite while doing nothing anyway. It is all a farce. If you are so worried about climate change, go to the ONE who made climate to begin with. After all, it is HE who tells it when to rain or snow & tells the wind to blow. And if that is disputed, then there MUST be something to HAARP controlling the weather and earthquake causing Tsunamis. So...which is it? Please...do tell!

Posted by: Angelgirl1 | March 3, 2010 2:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Don't worry Senator Lincoln. The American People recognize EPA regulation as a tax on us that is destructive to the economy and we are behind you. This new tax is a carbon tax in disguise that will be passed on to us in the prices of the products that we buy making virtually everything more expensive. Stick to the Constitution and ignore the socialists who want to redistribute our individual wealth. http://bit.ly/9gODFf

Posted by: websmith1 | March 3, 2010 2:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I naively thought that one purpose of a blog was to elicit comments from others in the community who might have insights that the blogger may not have considered. By reading this blog, I have learned that is not always the case. Some blogs are better than others are, and I have become accustomed to participating at some of the better ones.

It appears that no one associated with the production of this blog even bothers to read the comments. If they do, they certainly do not deign to respond to the hoi polloi who post here. Ms. Eilperin and her cohorts appear perfectly content to blithely go through the motions of being journalists all the while depending on radical activist groups to provide them with reliable information. This post, which appears to be solely committed to spreading the opinions of the Sierra Club, is an example. Ms. Eilperin apparently has no idea of how much trouble the IPCC brought down on itself by relying on the WWF (nee World Wildlife Fund), to provide accurate information about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. How could she? She has never investigated a source that might provide her with reliable information about the extent of corruption that is not apparent at IPCC.

This example, a screed from the Sierra Club, invokes emotional responses against “Big Oil” in an attempt to discredit Senator Lincoln’s attempt to keep EPA out of the carbon dioxide regulating business, a business that even Ms. Jackson (EPA Administrator) has admitted that EPA is ill prepared to enter. Nothing could be further from the truth. Few care about the emissions of “Big Oil” because mobile source emissions of carbon dioxide are a relatively small portion of our carbon dioxide emission.

Ms. Eilperin, and the rest of the staff of the Post, must stop relying on activist organizations to provide information about any scientific subject. Activists will write or say anything that they think will get attention and contributions; they are never bound by either truth or sound science.

Posted by: snorbertzangox | March 3, 2010 1:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment


 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company