The Sierra Club 's Political Program Essay

Writer, William Blumenfield, in his Huffington Post article, “ Environmental Justice a Form of Social Justice,” details the perceptive and political fallibilities of the Republican party in regards to their courses of action towards environmental justice aims. His inclination is to convey the err in their claims and capitalistic objectives, and to promote his ideology that social justice cannot occur without there first being strives to combat against environmental degradation. He develops a strong, but misplaced, pathos throughout his article, devoid of purposeful facts, resulting in a weak argument seemingly based on his resentment towards the Republican party. Blumenfield’s argument is weak in the fact that is argues based on unapologetically tearing down the other side instead of advocating his point while respectfully pointing out the flaws of conflicting views.

Rather than governmental identification of social problems and their solutions, conservations rely upon the market mechanics of supply and demand and the individual incentive of profit. Because government is exponentially larger today than it was before the Great Depression, conservatives today often critique the status quo and are resistant to further governmental expansion.

In Jan. 2011, the EPA decided to veto the dumping of waste from the Spruce No. 1 Mine. But the agency’s efforts have so far been rebuffed by the courts as an overreach: Under the weird legal regime that governs mining, it’s the Army Corps of Engineers, not the EPA, which has the ultimate say-so over those permits. In 2012, the D.C. district court ruled that EPA lacked authority to veto the permit after the Corps had issued it. However, in fact EPA's decision is based on evidence from scientific research on serious environmental harm from mining. In May 2013, a coalition of Appalachian and environmental groups petitioned the EPA to set a numeric water quality standard under the Clean Water Act to protect streams from pollution caused by mountaintop removal mining . They claimed that “State politics and industry pressure have so far failed to end this pollution without such a standard and more and more streams and communities who rely on those waters are left vulnerable. We need EPA to act now.” The EPA’s authority over the Clean Water Act in respect to Spruce Mine No. 1 was finally affirmed by the Supreme Court in March 2014.

In government many political leaders love to get peoples votes because the more votes they get the better chance of winning the election they have. So many political leaders sway towards what they believe the people feel they need and want their government to do about certain problems. This then makes for political leaders seem to know what they can do to help the people and get a benefit out of not only being elected but being able to save the environment. Due to this fact political leaders realize that people are all for conservation because they want to save the Earth so they will be able to keep living on this planet. This is why many political leaders have at least one or more conservational benefit that they want to proceed with if they get elected into government. This sometimes doesn’t happen in government though because they may get elected then a big event happens and they have to worry more about the major event then there ideas on how to save the environment. This can be seen by one of the biggest influences in government our current President Barack Obama. In Barack Obama’s first term he placed a law into place that in turn ended up being “one of the most significant conservation milestones in a decade. Chock-full of new protections for pristine and historic places, the measure sets the gold standard for land preservation by designating more than 2 million acres in nine states as wilderness.”(Danowitz 1). Due to this Obama became very popular with all the conservationist organizations and it also boosted his appeal to the people to see that he was

The political climate at this time, and remains, turbulent. Donald Trump was elected president of the United States, and his campaign was built upon making America great again. The long and short of this idea is that 20th century industry was suffering in our 21st century world, and Trump would deregulate the government and promote industry. One of Trump’s most pivotal decisions, despite growing international movements to prioritize climate change, was to select Scott Pruitt as the 14th administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The timing of “Scott Pruitt And The Environment” was likely to diffuse any center-right concerns that the current administration was marching towards far-right ideologies; in other words, Epstein sought to console Hoover Institute readership.

The Republican Party considers conservation to be a conservative value as long as it is properly balanced with economics. They consider human health and safety to be the first and most important issue in environmental concerns, as humans is our country’s most valuable resource. Their energy policy is simple: government by big oil, of big oil, and for big oil. This Administration let oil industry lobbyists and executives write our nation’s energy policy in secret. They even went to the Supreme Court to stop the public from learning what they were doing. This President’s approach to energy policy leaves America shackled to foreign oil, dependent, vulnerable, and

Now, we have President Trump, who wants to put a known coal lobbyist, Andrew Wheeler, into an executive position at the EPA. Even though, he signed an executive order to limit lobbying influence in government and “drain the swamp”, but puts people in power who favor energy industries and want to sacrifice environmental regulations (Chow, 2017). Wheeler has worked in government before, as an EPA staffer and a Republican staff member, and worked on every major piece of environmental and energy-related legislation over the last decade. If Wheeler and others like him are put into these executive positions, they will use their power to regulate policies, so it will look more favorably at reducing environmental regulations, and supporting energy

The mission of the Sierra Club is environmental preservation and protection. It does this by taking on a variety of roles. Representation is a key role. The Sierra Club represents the environment and avid supporters of environmental protection before the government. The Club lobbyists provide a voice for ecological concerns (Janda 174).

Slide1- The Sierra Club is a nonprofit, member-supported public interest organization that promotes conservation of the natural environment by influencing public policy decisions. In addition, the Sierra Club organizes participation in wilderness activities for its members, including mountain climbing, backpacking, and camping. It is the oldest and largest nonprofit, grassroots environmental organization in the world, with more than 700,000 members. (seven hundred thousand)

Greenpeace is an organization which often collides with governments in countries all over the world in its attempt to stop things like global warming, deforestation, overfishing and more. Greenpeace tries to reach their goals by direct action and lobbying. This is the part where they often collide with the governments.

Since the beginning of civilization humanity has adopted a subjugating stance toward nature. Ecological exploitation has become the de facto standard, contributing to the illusion of self-subsistence provided by modern society. This mindset is untenable given humanities reliance on the natural world, as best demonstrated by the critical importance of various parts of the environment to humanities continued existence. This includes the importance of biodiversity to medicinal advancement and climate adaptation, the role of insects in the renewal of the biosphere, and the importance of the environment for humanities psychological health.

in an effort to solve problems, which can be seen with the Clean Water Act.

The Twentieth Century conservationists like John Muir and Gifford Pinchot always argued that it was important for the government of the day to strike a balance between the two conflicting goals of economic development and environmental conservation. According to Menzel (2007; 3- 4), other environmental movements in the USA had been in constant conflict with industrial enterprises. The major root cause of conflict being the fact that industrial enterprises had ignored the fact their activities were hurting the environment through

compromises with the rest of the world but to keep up date and to form

According to Mintzberg, the environmental school of thought is a strategy dealing with the forces outside the organization. Unlike the other schools in his book, Strategy Safari, the environment plays a central role in the strategy formation process alongside leadership and the organization where the organization becomes subordinate to the external environment. The environmental school assumptions are that during the formative period of the organization the company shapes itself in response to the environment, but after that period is increasingly unable to respond to the environment. Moreover, the organization long term survival depends on the early choices made during its formative period. Over time, Mintzberg states, leadership becomes