Sierra Club Spurns $30 Million Gift as Fracking Turns Toxic

But the Sierra Club took $26 million from Chesapeake before it said no to the $30 million.

Bloomberg reports:

Environmental and health groups are calling for tougher U.S. regulation of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, turning on a one-time donor to their causes: Chesapeake Energy Corp. (CHK)
The Sierra Club, the largest U.S. environmental group, is rethinking early support of natural-gas development after activists and scientists linked the drilling to tainted water and increased air emissions, Executive Director Michael Brune said yesterday in an interview. The group turned down $30 million from Chesapeake after he took over in 2010, he said…

5 thoughts on “Sierra Club Spurns $30 Million Gift as Fracking Turns Toxic”

  1. They are so easily bought and paid for. I see it here in San Diego where the Sierra Club takes up causes as a favor to NIMBY groups, and against the greater good of the community. Regents Road Bridge, for instance, which would go over a not so pristine canyon that contains a two track busy railroad line and the City’s sewer line, which was recently dug up. The Sierra Club is helping the NIMBY’s who live at the cul-de-sacs created by the bridge not going up.

  2. Bloomberg missed a point, or got lazy. When new the Club’s new executive director Michael Brune took the helm, he said his first priority would be to drop corporate funding because it made the Club too ‘cozy’ (or something like that) with business interests.

    What this means, obviously, is that Chesapeake isn’t the only one that put something in the cookie jar–it was simply the scapegoat for Brune’s new policy. Now the question is, who were the others before Brune arrived, and why?

    As an aside, I would point out that greenies always ask where an opponent’s funding comes from. That’s because being mercenaries is their business model, and they figure everyone else is doing the same thing. They use this who-funds-whom tactic because much of their funding is covert, (or from ‘philanthropic’ foundations) so they plan to gain by ‘outing’ the other guy — such as was done to the Heartland Institute.

Comments are closed.