View Full Version : Sierra Club vs John Muir Trust, which is the Evil Twin?
Some weeks ago my attention was drawn to the activities of the John Muir Trust whose reason for being is to promote the protection of Scotland's wild places.
My curiosity led to the fact that the JMT has a twin organisation in the USA called the Sierra Club. The SC's goals are almost exactly the same as the JMT. The protection of wild land.
But here the similarity stops.
The Sierra club was founded by John Muir and is 130 years old, the JMT was merely named after John Muir and is nearly 30 years.
The Sierra Club promote the development of renewable energy sources and their website is packed with information promoting solar,wind and other renewable energy presumably because they regard fossil fuels as the major threat to wild land?
The JMT's website has no mention of the merits of renewable energy. And they have objected to many wind farm developments and have sponsored antiwindfarm activists to produce reports which question the performance of wind power.
Like anti-wind activists, they glibly say they are not against wind energy per se, yet they have yet to support one wind farm application as an organisation and yet they have objected to quite a lot.
The Sierra club actively endorses political candidates who have strong environmental concerns especially with respect to renewable energy. However, it is my opinion that the JMT would probably be more aligned to the manifesto of UKIP as they have policies which would be unsupportive of onshore wind power
So my question is this.
Which organisation would John Muir join if he were alive today? Which organisation is having the bigger impact to save wild land from destruction?
secrets in symmetry
15-Sep-12, 18:58
There's no doubt about it, John Muir would join the Sierra Club.
I know some of the clowns in the John Muir Trust that have been taken in by the conclusions of a certain schoolboy's project report. The appalling thing is that some of these clowns in the JMT have a scientific training! They should be booted out by those in the JMT with brains but no scientific training.
secrets in symmetry
15-Sep-12, 19:03
Would.
He would probably sue the JMT for attaching his name to a destructive organisation run by a bunch of morons. :cool:
Would.
He would probably sue the JMT for attaching his name to a destructive organisation run by a bunch of morons. :cool:
You know, I was thinking exactly the same thing a few weeks ago! Just like Charles Darwin would sue the Darwin awards.
secrets in symmetry
15-Sep-12, 23:03
You know, I was thinking exactly the same thing a few weeks ago! Just like Charles Darwin would sue the Darwin awards.Yes, the Darwin awards are an even better example of misuse of a famous man's name....
I had heard of the JMT but have never read up on them. You said in your opening sentence that they exist for the protection of Scotlands wild places, are they against all forms of development on the land, be it wind power, nuclear, or any other form of commercial or residential development? If so, then I don't see what the problem is, they simply want the land left as it is. As for John Muir himself and the Sierra Club, what were his and the clubs original aims? Is the modern Sierra Club misusing his name, or is it the JMT which is misusing the name?
secrets in symmetry
16-Sep-12, 19:25
I'll leave Rheghead to answer your first question. My objection concerns the JMT's naive swallowing of the conclusions of the forum schoolboy's report - conclusions which are so naive that even the schoolboy has problems understanding why he's wrong lol.
The John Muir Trust exists to protect wild lands and that is just what it tries to do. Quite how covering the mountains and other wild spaces with windfarms will protect them I have no idea and they will certainly have no effect on climate change, if that is man-made, which is debateable. However if you believe covering all wild spaces with turbines and solar panels is essential, what we are left with is an industrial landscape. Of course if that's what you want ....
Current scientific and engineering research shows windfarms are more likely to increase carbon emissions taking everything into consideration. By the time this Govt. comes to its senses the damage will have been done and cannot be undone. The fact that they continue to build windfarms on peatlands shows how illogical their policy is. The former Min. for Environment stated that "Even a small proportion of the carbon stored in peatlands, if lost by erosion and drainage, could add significantly to our greenhouse gas emissions." When I asked him how he reconciled that statement with the widespread destruction of peat caused by windfarms he couldn't answer. Those who developed the method used by the wind industry to estimate carbon emissions are now having second thoughts and say building on peat should always be avoided.
As for mountains - in the US they now blast the tops off to make them nice and flat for turbines. Do you really want to see that in Scotland?
The Sierra Club is not entirely popular in the US as you can see from this
http://www.mojavedesertblog.com/2012/06/john-muir-dead-at-age-175.html . However the same blog this month recommends the Sierra Club's current stance on the destruction caused by renewables
http://www.desertreport.org/?p=704 The article entitled Ill Wind etc. is worth reading.
The former Min. for Environment stated that "Even a small proportion of the carbon stored in peatlands, if lost by erosion and drainage, could add significantly to our greenhouse gas emissions." When I asked him how he reconciled that statement with the widespread destruction of peat caused by windfarms he couldn't answer. Those who developed the method used by the wind industry to estimate carbon emissions are now having second thoughts and say building on peat should always be avoided.
He probably didn't have any info to hand, he is a politician.
We've gone over carbon sequestration before on this forum countless times and it is unequivocal that a modern turbine mitigates many many times more carbon dioxide at the power stations than the area of peat on which the turbine sited can ever possibly sequester. Even the REF report that was submitted to Scottish ministers said as much. A bit of an own goal if you ask me.
It is a shame that the JMT don't recognise that big renewable energy is one of our major tools in tackling climate change. Wind and the other proposed technologies are a vital part in combatting global warming and are in effect the guardians of the landscape. That sounds like a really woollie attitude but there is no getting away from the fact that we need renewables to replace fossil fuels which cause climate change. We are losing the nature of our hills as vital sub-arctic fauna and flora is being killed off by rising temperatures and in some cases are being replaced by species from warmer climate or garden escape species. If wind power doesn't lead the way then the other renewables aren't going to follow.
The JMT promote inaction on renewable energy and I'm afraid that attitude will destroy the hills which they want to preserve.
oldchemist
18-Sep-12, 13:15
Just build nuclear - problem solved.
Just build nuclear - problem solved.
I hope you are right but if you look at availability of nuclear fuel and how much energy there has to be to bridge the gap between long term supply and demand then it is not sustainable, if it isn't sustainable then it can't scratch the surface of what is needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
I'm sure argument this is totally lost on JMT, if it isn't then they are putting their proverbial heads in the sand.
Which organisation is having the bigger impact to save wild land from destruction?
I wonder if the goals of each organisation are maybe getting a little confused here.
The JMT, as I understand it, aim to maintain the wild land as "wild". Climate change or renewable power is not on their agenda, it is more about keeping undeveloped areas undeveloped.
The Sierra club have different agendas.
Environmentalism, Conservation etc etc can take many forms. The JMT don't have to build windmills to prove any "green" credentials.
The JMT don't have to build windmills to prove any "green" credentials.
No but the Earth is sick and the analogy to them objecting to wind turbines is like a husband persuading his wife who has been diagnosed with breast cancer to not have a mastectomy because he doesn't like the scars after the operation.
There's one wee bit of land left that the JMT want to remain undisturbed yet you'd still like to see it get turbines stuck on it, even though huge swathes of countryside are being given over to wind energy. Regardless of how sick the Earth is, and I do support green initiatives, I'd still like to see an area that hasn't been spoilt by ANY sort of development.
I'd still like to see an area that hasn't been spoilt by ANY sort of development.
Yes, fully agree, those areas are called National Parks.
Don't National Parks get government backing or have SSSI status attached? Does the land JMT wants to remain unspoilt have the same sort of protection?
Don't National Parks get government backing or have SSSI status attached? Does the land JMT wants to remain unspoilt have the same sort of protection?
There must be reasons why other areas have not got National Park status, but if you think that there can be case brought together so that Caithness is worthy of being defined as wild/unspoilt land and thus elligible for National Park status then then I'll be very supportive of that.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.