Sierra Club and its environmental allies have joined together to oppose Proposition 7, a costly renewable energy scheme that actually will make it harder to build clean power in our state.
Proposition 7:
1. Contains serious, inherent flaws that could get in the way of achieving its goal of 50% renewable fuels by 2025.
2. Actually works against Sierra Club-backed energy policies that would allow communities to choose the source of their energy.
3. Decreases environmental review of proposed power plants.
Watch the ad above to learn more, or click here to read our position on Proposition 7.
6 comments:
I AM EXTREMELY ANNOYED THAT SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA TOOK A STANCE ON PROP 4. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENVIRONMENT EXCEPT OVERPOPULATION. I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO TELEPHONE THE 415 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND DEMAND THAT RICHARD MILLER, CHAIR POLITICS TAKE DOWN ITS ENDORSEMENT. A BETTER NON-ENVIRONMENTAL ENDORSEMENT IS OF PROP 8 SINCE LGBT FOLKS TEND TO BE ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS AND VICE VERSA. THANK YOU. I AM CONSIDERING ENDING MY MEMBERSHIP.
Dear Anonynous,
A majority of the California/Nevada Conservation Committee delegates did vote in support of the Parental Notification. I understand that many did vote against endorseing it. I would encourage you to make sure your delegate knows how you feel and ask the chapter to address the issue.
The Sierra Club is like the government, you have to participate.
Many leaders in my chapter feel the same as you on this matter.
They say "will cost jobs". How dare you, an enviro against the only cure for planet Earth! (You are listed as against CA's prop 7)
hundreds or thousands of square miles of concentrated solar thermal (ON DEMAND clean electricity) in the deserts IS THE ONLY WAY OUT OF OUR OIL, GW, AND FINANCIAL MESS. Common sence says that it would create millions more jobs (this is because all AE is quite labor intensive) and promote e-car factories.
Oh, you are for the $10 billion fancy train! wouldn't that money be better spent MAKING CLEAN ENERGY
Darn you guys are way backwards!
Regarding the first comment: I'd like to clarify why we took that position.
Since the 1960s, the Sierra Club has had policies supporting broad, unrestricted access to family planning services in the U.S. and around the world, including access to abortion services. Unfettered access to family planning services are an important aspect of managing population growth. Prop 4creates new obstacles to access, hence our opposition.
The second commenter is correct about volunteer involvement driving our positions: Sierra Club's positions on ballot measures and candidates come from our volunteer leaders. Our Population Committee actively sought an endorsement on Prop 4.
What makes you think that LGBT folks tend to be environmentally conscious and environmentally conscious people tend to be LGBT? What is your basis for that? What a crock.
Another lame argument is comparing Prop 8 to Prop 4. What does one have to do with the other.? Population growth and access to reproductive services is an environmental issue
If the Sierra Club takes a position against Prop. 8 it should be based on its merits. The Sierra Club has offered benefits for domestic partners of employees for over 10 years. A argument could be made that if the Sierra Club cares about its gay employees it would take a position against Prop 8 like Google or PG&E.
Of course, this has nothing to do with Prop 7 that is a terrible initiative that would set back the growth of renewable power in CA for a long time.
What we really need to do is reform California's initiative process.
In response to the discussion about Prop 4, the overwhelming majority of CNRCC delegates voted to oppose the Paternal Notification proposal for the following reasons:
The Sierra Club Opposes Prop 4
Principal arguments against Prop 4
Sierra Club officially promotes family planning and is pro-choice, an ethical value for all members.
Unplanned births are a major part of the rapid population growth in the world and in California. Each birth adds to the increasing demands on the environment, clean air, clean water, sprawl, congestion, increase in energy needs, loss of farmland, loss of habitat, and ever decreasing biodiversity.
This is the third attempt by the supporters of Prop 73 (2005) and Prop 85 (2006) to limit access to safe, quality medical care for vulnerable minors.
Voters rejected this similar initiative twice before because the most important issue should be keeping teens safe, not passing laws that could force minors to navigate a complicated court system or worse to force them into a back alley abortion.
The 2008 Initiative goes further than propositions 73 (2005) and 85 (2006) and would force medical professional to report the parents of a teenager to Child Protective Services if the teen chose to tell a family member other than a parent. The teenager would be required to state in writing that the choice to substitute family member is because they live in an abusive environment. This would then trigger a law enforcement investigation into the home.
This new initiative also mandates reporting requirements, including report from physicians regarding abortions on minors. Although the initiative allows for the Court to permit a waiver notice based on clear and convincing evidence of a minor's maturity or best interests, the minor would have to travel to court and appear before a judge.
The similar Prop 85 was opposed by doctors, teachers, nurses, more than 500 organizations, 200 elected officials and a majority of voters. Nine counties switched from a "YES" vote to a "NO" vote.
Patricia Jones
Chair, CNRCC
Post a Comment