Reclaiming the Sierra Club

Over its 112 year history the Sierra Club has become the icon of the environmental movement. This month the Sierra Club is electing new members to its board of directors, and a hornets nest is underway. Club leadership is claiming that grass roots petition candidates are threatening a “hostile outside take over by right wing anti-immigration organizations.” (from the Los Angeles Times) Nonsense! What’s really happening is a major internal power struggle by rival sets of Sierrans with different visions of environmental activism. And their point of contention revolves around U.S. population growth and immigration policy.

In l969 the Club adopted the following policy:

“The Sierra Club urges the people of the United States to abandon population growth as a pattern and goal; to commit themselves to limit the total population of the United States in order to achieve balance between population and resources, and to achieve a stable population no later than the year 1990.”

Despite three decades of low birth rates, we did not stabilize our growth. Just since since l990 we have added 44 million people, most of which is driven by immigration and our gluttony for cheap labor. At the current rate of growth we will double ourselves in 70 years, and there is no end in sight. It’s pretty obvious that we cannot simultaneously protect our natural heritage, and plan for the long-term viability of our environment, at the same time that we pursue unrestrained growth.

In l996 club directors overturned the l969 policy with a radically new proclamation that the Sierra Club would “take no position on immigration levels or policies governing immigration into the United States.” They felt that discussion of immigration policy would be divisive, and it would deter immigrants from joining the club. In other words, in a pander to immigrants and political correctness, the Sierra Club would not address the single most important policy affecting our environment; namely, population.

Many old-time members were simply dumbfounded. Within just two years and against tremendous opposition from leadership, they organized the first membership vote on the new proclamation. Club leadership introduced a rival proposal on the ballot, breaking club rules and confusing the issue. Even so, 40 percent of the vote called for a return to the original policy on population. David Brower, one of the oldest, most famous, and widely respected members of the Sierra Club responded in l998: “The leadership is fooling themselves. Overpopulation is a very serious problem, and over immigration is a big part of it.”

Club leadership is undeterred by the hypocrisy of claiming there is a “global” population problem, and every country should be addressing it, but not us. Instead, club leadership drags out that old finger wagging guilt inducing sermon about our high consumption and the poverty of others. We all know that consumption needs to be reduced, but the fact is most developing countries are trying to swamp our consumer markets with their cheap goods, in order to prop up their struggling economies. No one really wants Americans to reduce their consumption, especially not the poor. And club leadership is oblivious to the reality that American population growth, not the refusal of Bush or Clinton to pass the Kyoto Treaty, is the single greatest impediment to reducing the carbon emissions from our country that predominately cause global warming.

When we decide to invite nearly 2 million foreign people with high fertility rates (legal and illegal immigrants) to come to America every year, copy us and drive automobiles, then we are deliberately pursuing growth that destroys the global climate, not just our own. Stonewalling the subject of immigration and American population growth is hypocritical, cowardly, and hugely destructive to the planet.

Population is an uncomfortable subject everywhere. Latin America does not talk about their growth because of the Catholic Church, and Muslim countries won’t touch it because of their discomfort with women’s rights, which is directly related to high fertility. And we aren’t talking about our growth because of immigration. Every one has their sacred excuse for touchiness, but these are not legitimate reasons for avoiding a subject of such importance to the human race.

The debate in the club has gotten nasty. The same guilt by association smear tactics used by McCarthy to destroy the reputation of loyal public servants is being used by club leadership to discredit these grass roots candidates. Club leadership is running three candidates of their own, who are using their space in the election booklet to attack the candidates calling for a return to the old policies on population. One of these phony candidates is Morris Dees, of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Dees attacks the three petition candidates, and with guilt by association he connects them to white supremacy, bigotry, and the “greening of hate.” So, who are these so-called right-wing anti-immigrant bigots?

One is former Governor Dick Lamm of Colorado. A Democrat, who was selected as the “Humanitarian of the Year” in l992 by the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission. Etc.

Another is Dr. David Pimentel, Professor of Ecology, Cornell University. He is on the Board of Directors of the National Audubon Society, has chaired the Environmental Studies Board of the National Academy of Sciences, and is the Editor of the Journal of Environment, Development and Sustainability, etc. He is endorsed by Lester Brown of The Worldwatch Institute, Senator Gaylord Nelson, Earth Day Founder, Edward O. Wilson, prominent conservation biologist of Harvard University, and George Woodwell, Director of Woods Hole Research Center.

The third candidate is Frank Morris, former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucas with a long commitment to environmental justice; chairman of the Diversity Alliance for a Sustainable America, professor at Northwestern University. He has won three awards from the NAACP. Superior Honor Award, listed: “Who’s Who in Black America?”

Voila! The right wing coalition of anti-immigrant bigots which Morris Dees and the club leadership have managed to connect to hatred and white supremacy. And so successful has been this smear campaign that many respected organizations, like The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and Moveon.org. are calling on Sierra Club members to resist this “hostile takeover” by “anti-immigrant activists.” There is nothing “anti-immigrant” about limiting immigration.. When families practice birth control so they can do a better job of caring for their children, we don’t accuse them of being “anti-children.”

The long-term welfare of the environment and all Americans, immigrant and native born, is served by stabilizing our population and setting an example of responsible national planning for all countries.

Jonette Christian, of Holden, a member of Mainers for Sensible Immigration Policy, can be reached at jonette@acadia.net.