What the Hell Happened To The Sierra Club?
Its recent implosion over left-wing politics shows a trend that threatens environmental advocacy.
In an era of growing American fascism, for progressive organizations, there are successful strategies, and unsuccessful strategies. And then there is the Sierra Club, which appears to have destroyed itself, according to a depressing and enraging expose in the New York Times (co-written by David Fahrenthold, one of their best reporters):
“Sierra Club is in a downward spiral,” a group of managers wrote in a letter reviewed by The New York Times to the club’s leadership in June.
That spiral helps Mr. Trump. But it was not his doing. The Sierra Club did this to itself.
During Mr. Trump’s first term, when the Sierra Club was flush with donations, its leaders sought to expand far beyond environmentalism, embracing other progressive causes. Those included racial justice, labor rights, gay rights, immigrant rights and more. They stand by that shift today.
They might stand by it, but they have succeeded in potentially fatally injuring the organization that they stand by.
The downside, according to interviews with people involved with the group and a review of financial records and internal documents, was that the Sierra Club lost its focus, then its strength.
By 2022, the club had exhausted its finances and splintered its coalition….
Because of increased salaries, health care costs and additional hiring, labor costs would double between 2016 and 2024, according to an internal club budget document.
At the same time, the club asked its supporters to agree with positions farther from the environmental causes that had attracted them in the first place.
It issued an “equity language guide,” which warned employees to be cautious about using the words “vibrant” and “hardworking,” because they reinforced racist tropes. “Lame duck session” was out, because “lame” was offensive. Even “Americans” should be avoided, the guide said, because it excluded non-U. S. citizens….
Jim Dougherty, an environmental activist and Sierra Club director, said he had raised objections to a 2019 budget that called for the equivalent of 108 full-time employees to work on a “national equity investment.” Most of those were not new hires; rather a refocus of the responsibilities of many current employees…
“I said, ‘We have two F.T.E.s devoted to Trump’s war on the Arctic refuge, and we have 108 going to D.E.I., and I don’t think we have our priorities straight,’” Mr. Dougherty said, using the acronyms for “full-time employees” and “diversity, equity and inclusion.”
Mr. Dougherty said no other board members agreed, and the budget passed….
“We didn’t have a direct ‘Trump bump’ in the same way we did for the first Trump administration,” Ms. Blackford said in an interview.
In the month after Mr. Trump won the 2024 election, the club’s internal count of the group it called champions declined. As of August, internal tracking documents show it stood at 1.5 million, down about 60 percent from its high in 2019. The Sierra Club said it had reduced its efforts to recruit these more casual supporters in 2023, after the bulk of this decline occurred.
Its hardest-core supporters have also dwindled: The number of dues-paying members has fallen by 27 percent from its level at the start of 2021.
What in the world is going on here? I think that we can identify a few patterns, some of which are old, but many of which are new and figure to get more extreme.
- Liberal founders, Left staff. This trend has occurred elsewhere: donors want to do something good for the world, and found an organization based upon their liberal principles. All very well and good.
But who often works for many organizations? People who are younger, and somewhat more to the Left than the founders. They are very committed to more radical principles – those who are not probably have a harder time putting up with the lower salaries (although that is not the case with high-level staffers; the Times reports that former Sierra Club Ben Jealous awarded his senior staff salaries in excess of $300,000). They push the organization in that direction. Thus, the founder of Human Rights Watch quit after he saw the organization’s staff embrace an unremittingly hostile attitude toward Israel – not its politics, but its existence.
I encountered this when I was a “Global Justice Fellow” at the American Jewish World Service ten years ago. Although the organization purported to foster broad principles of democracy and liberalism, staff was much further to the Left. We were advocating for changes in USAID (z”l) policies concerning the empowerment of women, and I suggested to our consultant that one way to reach Republican support was to pitch it as a way to fight sex trafficking. He was enthusiastic. But absolutely not, according to staff. Why? Because fighting “sex trafficking” meant that we would somehow not be respectful of sex workers. (We saw this in the NYT piece when the Sierra Club stopped using the phrase “lame duck” because it was disrespectful to the disabled).
- Group polarization. Group polarization occurs when the consensus opinion of a group is more extreme than opinions previously held by the individuals in it. Psychologists have recognized this phenomenon for decades. But it derives from several different mechanisms. It’s possible that the more extreme side just has better arguments: hard to say that occurred here.
Instead, it makes better sense to think of polarization here deriving from social comparison: people try to make themselves stand out, and engage in one-upmanship. And that is particularly true when one group holds beliefs more firmly. Liberalism is about procedural fairness and self-questioning: “a liberal,” Robert Frost famously noted, “is someone who will not take his own side in an argument.” That is not a problem for the harder Left. And that is especially true when at least ostensibly the group shares the same commitments. As Cass Sunstein has noted, depolarization can happen under certain circumstances. If the people in a group do not believe that they have things in common and share an identity, then there is less likelihood that polarization will develop. Groups will also depolarize if there is divided opinion within the group and both sides have about the same amount of power and commitment to their opinions.
But the Sierra Club case had exactly the opposite tendencies. It is an article of faith in many precincts of the Left that all problems are interconnected (which for the record is not what “intersectionality” means). But even liberals share a generalized belief in racial justice: how could they really oppose a new focus on DEI?
So now the Sierra Club appears to have come close to collapse and is unable to provide many resources in the existential fight against environmental destruction. And I think it will get worse, because these sorts of problems will become greater in the internet/social media era. Social media is in fact an engine of group polarization. Sunstein warned of “internet information cocoons” 20 years ago, before social media. We are seeing it exponentially increase now. The only saving grace might be that everyone will have stronger views and so group polarization will occur less because everyone will be surer of their views. Possible: but I still think that the tendency for one-upsmanship will just accelerate.
In the era of Trump, George Floyd, and Israel/Palestine, we will continue to see the attempt to connect everything to everything. I think that group polarization through the web will be part of it. Greta Thunberg used to advocate to fight climate change: now she is spending her time on a flotilla to Gaza.
So it goes.
Reader Comments
11 Replies to “What the Hell Happened To The Sierra Club?”
Comments are closed.
About Jonathan
Jonathan Zasloff teaches Torts, Land Use, Environmental Law, Comparative Urban Planning Law, Legal History, and Public Policy Clinic – Land Use, the Environment and Loc…
READ more
The emphasis on polarization seems overblown, I think the loss of focus is the real issue. The staff could have pushed for more radical environmental interventions (e.g., energy transformations, degrowth), or built a robust environmental justice program. Instead, the Sierra Club has long championed incrementalist environmentalism. So why were they casting about in these other areas that, while related, are not as central to the organization’s mission?
Because those other areas not part of the current state of the Left. Greta Thunberg could have pushed for these things, too, but she is spending her time on the Gaza flotilla. Those other issues are what defines “radicalism” now.
I think the NYT piece is a much-needed work of journalism because it exposes the loss of attention to the purpose of the Sierra Club. That purpose is to protect public lands and wildlife and to advocate for pollution prevention and clean air and water, along with other specific environmental protection causes. The shift to “let’s be an all-purpose left wing advocacy group” will not work. If someone is going to give money to Sierra Club, they want their money to go to protecting the environment. Same if they volunteer. The organization has lost its way.
Environmentalism and DEI can co-exist among articulated values and overlap in efforts that advance circular economy. However, Sierra Club priorities and allocation of resources should align with its founding mission and purpose — protecting the environment. It is not uncommon for non-profits to stray off mission when chasing funding and grants. That is when strong leadership is needed to stay the course. It takes discipline.
I can only talk about one tiny toe of the elephant.
One year, I joined a chapter because of concerns I had over certain local decisions regarding a regional park.
The local chapter would not even discuss the issue – for one thing, it was maybe too late, and for another, it seemed like they all supported the decision and apparently knew some of the people involved in making it. (Of course, I was too late in joining – since it was after the fact – my fault.) No one else thought that there were access issues at stake. But I don’t see what is so horrible about having a discussion of something, myself.
Further, some decisions about endorsements were puzzling to me as a voter. F.e., we support this particular councilperson because they support getting off oil. Well … doesn’t the other candidate also support that? I’m guessing “yes.” I mean, this is California, and they don’t live under a rock, so … ?
Now for the positive – I think that maybe the SC is really a collection of people who are mostly just interested in *their* thing – whether it’s water, CC, or expanding national parks. Or critters. Or what-have-you.
There is a lot of expertise and a lot of dedication – going in a bunch of different directions. (I’m just talking about my impression of members. I never met the big cheeses – and only one staffer.)
And given that, I speculate that maybe people didn’t have the stomach to put a lot of energy and time into fighting off bad central decision-making that may have seemed merely symbolic. Especially if it’s going to get you called names. And remember, there was covid and all of that mess happening.
There is still a really great baby in that bath water. Some day when I am less broke, I might join up again.
Oh and also … I’m totally with you on being annoyed at some of the major “human rights” orgs. (Now I have to use quote marks!!??)
Sooooo annoyed.
Also the UN. It needs to be scrubbed from top to bottom.
My friend, who’s been inside the Sierra Club at the chapter leadership level, has been fighting this change at the Sierra Club for years now. It’s been very clear to them that a couple of factions have very carefully and strategically taken over the leadership by kicking out the leaders that have been furthering the interests of the environment, and therefore all of us, for years. Their goals have nothing to do with the environment.
Her comment: Mountain bikers and Yimbys. Ride it and build it. F—k the environment.
That’s an interesting comment, Diane. Because I am also wondering how much of the DSA activism – maybe just locally in the Southern part of the state – is being used by the Yimby/Wimby folk. I don’t know for certain but I think there is some overlap.
Or, the DSA is just getting used. Anyhow, I think there is a DSA aspect to this too – however, I don’t have any direct data on it. (DSA people frustrate me a bit bc I think they have good intentions, mostly. However I don’t see the competence. Unless the real goals are different from the stated ones. Yet that seems paranoid.)
Every current or former SC member will have their take on this. Mine is that the NY Times article was simplistic. The SC is a large organization that has undergone both sudden and evolutionary changes over a period of 133 years while maintaining it’s dual focus of encouraging people to go outdoors and of conservation, a.k.a. protecting the planet (includes people & wildlife, fauna & flora). The SC is also a volunteer led organization – with paid staff – with chapters in every U.S. state. Each chapter has a local focus derived from the dual SC mission. The Sierra Club is very much alive. Yes, there are things to work on and some loom large though that may depend upon location or individual preference. In one example there are individuals who want to change the SC mission by ignoring advocacy for every SC purpose except for cutting green house gases: nothing else. That is just one example – there are others. Nonetheless valuable work on multiple fronts continues, both at the individual chapter level and higher up. There is valuable work being done – taking thousands of volunteer hours – on climate action, encouraging sustainable land use & building electrification, fighting back against polluters & pollution, protecting sensitive habitat & wildlife, on coastal issues & clean water. The list and actions go on and on, and I see the effects of this work every day. That is why I remain a proud Sierra Club member.
Glad you’re still carrying the SC flag (“Still a Sierra Club Member”) however, I find it interesting that you mention only environmental initiatives, not any of the (hopefully) past focus on non-environmental, social justice campaigns and emphasis. While I admire your enthusiasm that alone will not suffice to resurrect this organization. They need to outwardly refocus on the core mission of environmental advocacy. I was a pretty staunch supporter, financially and otherwise, until Ramon Cruz came on board and I attended my first Zoom call with him and we spent the first half-hour going around introducing ourselves, ID’ing preferred pronouns, and indicating from which “occupied lands” we were living. And then, during the George Floyd tragedy, any and all communication (I was an Outings Leader) had to first get approved by National HQ, and had to include a lengthy pre-amble about racial injustice that was often longer than the core message! Unbelievable. Sad. One other observation: I recently vacationed in Scotland and there they revere John Muir, as their principle environmental organization is called the John Muir Trust; the Sierra Club basically disavowed and disowned him in the name of DEI, social justice and the like. Good riddance to Ramon Cruz and Ben Jealous! I hope the damage they have inflicted can be corrected over time.
Had I been on the SC board in 2019, I wonder if I would’ve had the nerve to argue against mission creep, to defend John Muir as an essential though flawed visionary, and to acknowledge privileges that affect my perspective. I probably would’ve failed miserably.