Johann Hari's piece "The Wrong Kind of Green " takes mainstream environmental groups to task for selling out their principles, often in exchange for money from the worst polluters. Posing the question, "How do we retrieve a real environmental movement, in the very short time we have left?" Hari argues that we have no choice but to confront the movement's addiction to corporate cash and its penchant for environmentally destructive political deal-making--even if doing so requires having a "difficult and ugly fight." We invited a range of green groups mentioned in the article to respond to Hari's arguments in this special online forum, which concludes with Hari's reply. Readers may also be interested in the web letters  written about the piece. --The Editors
National Wildlife Federation
The Nation's cover story "The Wrong Kind of Green" is an irresponsible and toxic mixture of inaccurate information and uninformed analysis. The author, who did not contact the National Wildlife Federation for this story, has written a work of fiction that hardly merits a response, except that it stoops to a new low by attacking the reputation of the late Jay Hair, a former CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, whose powerful legacy of conservation achievement speaks for itself.
In case The Nation is interested in publishing facts, the National Wildlife Federation is funded primarily by the generous donations of 4 million members and supporters. Corporate partnerships for our educational work account for less than 1/2 of 1 percent of our funding. Our dedicated staff, volunteers and state affiliates fight tirelessly to take on polluters, protect wildlife habitat, promote clean energy and educate families about wildlife and the importance of spending time outdoors in nature.
What will The Nation do next, blame polar bears for global warming?
Back to list 
Kevin Koenig, Ecuador Program Coordinator
Congratulations to Johann Hari for the courage to 'out' what many have been whispering about for a long time. While we all want to see a stop to deforestation and real progress in addressing climate change, the approach of the BINGOs has been to double down on market-based solutions, a questionable approach given that the market, its drivers, and its defenders (the IFIs for example) are some of the same culprits responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place.
Many of the industry friendly stopgap measures the BINGOs are advocating for don't meet the threshold for emissions reductions that scientists are telling us are needed to keep the temperature rise from surpassing 2C. And many treat forests as mere carbon concessions, at the expense of biodiversity, and indigenous rights. Given that the tipping point for forest collapse is as close as 2-10 years away, this is no time for compromise, or false solutions.
A market-based offset system that equates fossil carbon with biotic carbon is little more than carbon laundering, and the BINGOs should be wielding their power to address the drivers of climate change and deforestation, as well as advocating for indigenous rights protections that reflect the traditional and current role indigenous peoples play in preserving their rainforest territories.
We invite these organizations to address the drivers of climate change and deforestation, and make indigenous rights central to their climate change agenda. Several BINGOs, in the run up to COP 15, committed to what in essence is a 'No Rights, No REDD' position. Given the absence of any meaningful or substantive language referencing indigenous rights--let lone guaranteeing them--in the Copenhagen Accord, these groups should be speaking out and withdrawing their support for REDD unless basic inalienable principles like FPIC (Free, Prior, Informed, Consent), are included.
Back to list 
National Wildlife Federation
In "The Wrong Kind of Green" Johann Hari made outrageous and entirely false statements about my late husband, Dr. Jay Hair.
Jay died in 2002 after a five-year battle with an incurable bone marrow cancer. He devoted his life, with all his considerable passion, courage and intelligence, to protecting this planet. Jay never betrayed that mission in order to "suck millions," as the article claimed, from oil and gas companies. During Jay's tenure as president of the National Wildlife Federation, corporate contributions never exceeded 1 percent of NWF's budget.
In 1982 Jay established NWF's Corporate Conservation Council to create a forum for dialogue with Fortune 500 leaders. Prior to this controversial initiative, almost the only place business and environmental leaders met was in court. Jay took considerable heat, but he understood that the enormity of our environmental challenges required that all sectors--private, governmental, NGO, religious--be involved and talking to one another.
The Council was funded solely by its members; NWF's budget was not drawn upon to create the Council, nor did corporate money from the Council seep into NWF's regular budget.
In 1989 the Exxon Valdez spilled 10 million gallons of Prudhoe crude. Jay was the first national environmental leader to go to Prince William Sound to draw attention to the social and environmental devastation. Under Jay's leadership, NWF initiated the class action lawsuit against Exxon for punitive damages. He protested on the floor of the Exxon stockholders meeting. If Exxon or anyone else thought that Corporate Conservation Council membership bought them "reputation insurance," per Mr. Hari, for "an oil spill that had caused irreparable damage," they clearly were mistaken.
Jay was only 56 when he died. Had he lived, he would have continued to be a passionate and courageous voice on behalf of our imperiled planet.
Your sloppy reporting smeared the reputation of a fine man. You owe an apology.
Back to list 
Phil Radford, Executive Director
"The Wrong Kind of Green" points to three principles that could make environmental advocacy groups stronger and the world a safer place for our children. First, avoid the perceived or real conflicts of interest created by taking corporate money. Second, start with what must be done to save the environment, not with what we think we can eke out of an unfriendly Congress. Third, the way forward will be bottom-up, shutting and stopping coal plants. I couldn't agree more.
For forty years, Greenpeace has maintained our financial independence, refusing money from corporations.
A few years ago, Greenpeace and our allies decided to stop deforestation in the Amazon by "convincing" the major industries driving the problem to cease and desist. We would then permanently lock up the forests by securing financing from rich countries. When we discovered that cattle ranching was one of the primary drivers of deforestation, Greenpeace activists throughout the United States and Europe nudged Nike and Timberland to cancel their contracts with leather company causing deforestation. A few cancelled contracts later; the major ranching companies agreed with Greenpeace Brazil to a moratorium on any ranching that causes deforestation.
It doesn't matter if you work with companies or governments, as long as you are independent, start with the ecological goal, work globally with governments or companies to change the game, and ultimately bring your opponents to a place where they'll lobby for your law or can't withstand it.
It is difficult to imagine a way forward on global warming that gets at the root of the problem--coal, the number one cause of global warming pollution--without a plant-by-plant fight to shut down coal. Some have approached coal with an attitude of "if you cant beat them, join them." The Sierra Club and Greenpeace have a different approach: "beat coal until they join us."
Back to list 
Natural Resources Defense Council
John Adams, professor of political science, University of Pennsylvania
I read your article "The Wrong Kind of Green" and was disappointed with your comments about Jay Hair, now dead eight years. I have no knowledge of any contributions made from oil and gas to NWF, but what I do know is, Jay was a dedicated environmentalist, and to the best of my knowledge, he did not sell out on any issues. I find it very troubling that someone who cannot defend himself is made the center of this article without many facts backing up the charges.
Back to list 
Center for Biological Diversity
Kieran Suckling, Executive Director
Johann Hari's article follows upon stories in the Washington Post and E&E which ask similar questions: Why do so many of the large U.S. environmental groups appear to take their lead on climate policy from Congress and the White House? Why do they appear to lack a bottom line on climate policy? He is puzzled by the quick endorsement of weak climate bills, lauding of the Obama administration's regressive position at Copenhagen, and claims that Copenhagen was a success.
What motivates such positions is unclear. But this much is very clear: as a political strategy, such positioning has been a failure. Congress and the White House have taken progressively weaker positions since early drafts of Markey-Waxman. They are giving ground in the face of corporate opposition and see little reason to move towards environmental groups who have already endorsed weak positions and signaled that they will endorse even weaker positions.
Similarly, it was a strategic mistake to press Congress to pass comprehensive climate legislation by pitting it as the alternative to Clean Air Act regulation. The result of that strategy could be (and was) predicted from the outset: climate deniers would latch onto the sense that Clean Air Act regulation is a bad idea and climate supporters (such as Kerry) would feel they have cover to use the Clean Air Act as a bargaining chip to win conservative votes. We would not be looking at such vehement opposition to Clean Air Act and such confusion about its working in the media, had the larger environmental groups been clear from that the outset that the Clean Air Act is effective, should be used to its fullest to combat global warming, and that any new legislation must be additive to the Clean Air Act, not in opposition to it.
Climate and wildlife scientists have convincingly shown that we must reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions to 350 parts per million from our current level of 387 ppm if we are to avoid runaway global warming and the extinction of polar bears, corals and thousand of other species. The Center for Biological Diversity has joined with groups such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and 350.org to establish this as a bright line criteria for endorsement of any climate legislation, policy, or international agreement. It is not a negotiable position because the conditions which support life on Earth are not negotiable.
While pushing for new, comprehensive legislation, the Center believes it is imperative that we simultaneously use existing environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions now and updating land and wildlife management plans to ensure imperiled species are able to survive the level of global warming that is already locked in. We've had many successes in this arena and, as Hari describes, recently petitioned the EPA to scientifically determine the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases), just as it does for other criteria air pollutants. We believe that level is 350 parts per million or less.
Hari correctly describes the aggressive, public opposition to having EPA determine this safe level by a faction within the Sierra Club. Even worse, this faction tried to convince other environmental groups to support a congressional vote to prevent the EPA from determining the safe level of greenhouse gas pollution. The scientific determination of a clear greenhouse gas emission target is not in the interest of those who have endorsed vastly weaker targets.
The good news, however, is that the Sierra Club is a diverse and dynamic organization. Many of its leaders (including board members and chapters) are strongly in favor the Center and the 350.org's petition to cap greenhouse gas emissions. I agree with Hari that recent changes in Sierra Club management are promising and look forward to working with the organization to fully use the power of science, the Clean Air Act, and new legislation to reduce carbon dioxide to 350 part per million. That is unquestionably the task of our generation.
The questions asked by Hari will continue to be posed by astute reporters, and will be asked with increasing urgency as endorsement are lined up for a very weak Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill which will seek to increase oil drilling, continue coal burning and allow greenhouse gas emissions to increase past irrevocable tipping points. Whether one agrees with Hari's answers or not, his questions are critical for our time. As environmental leaders, we would do well to take them as opportunities for self-reflection rather than defensive dismissal.
Back to list 
Carl Pope, executive director
While thin on solutions Hari's story was so plump with distortions of reality that it might have been written by Lewis Carroll.
Hari's silliest innuendo is that the Sierra Club is somehow less than aggressive in the fight against coal power. Sierra Club members have blocked no less than 119 coal-fired power plants in recent years and the organization is regarded by friend and foe as the most successful force in the critical effort to scrap coal power. On February 10, even climate scientist James Hansen pulled on a Sierra Club T-shirt and participated in Sierra Student Coalition anticoal rally at the University of North Carolina--one of dozens of such rallies our young activists have held in support of Hansen's number one anti-climate disruption goal--to move America beyond coal.
The author also offered the false and offensive analogy that Sierra Club's cause-related marketing partnership with Clorox's environmentally friendly cleaning products was like Amnesty International being funded by genocidal war criminals. The Sierra Club had ensured that these products met the Environmental Protection Agency's most stringent standard, "Design for the Environment," spending four months reviewing Green Works to ensure that it deserved this designation. In the two years since the partnership began, no one has cited any evidence that Green Works products do not meet the environmental claims made for them. They are, rather, helping to increase demand for green products in the marketplace.
Finally, while there are legitimate disagreements between lawyers about the best legal strategies for cutting carbon emissions, we have always supported the deepest emissions cuts in line with the science and need to convert to a new clean energy economy. This includes cuts endorsed by the Center for Biological Diversity, with whom we often join in litigation. Indeed, it was the Sierra Club that helped bring the original suit which led to the Supreme Court Decision that spurred EPA to begin regulating global warming pollution.
Back to list 
Bill McKibben, founder
Many thanks to Johann Hari for an interesting piece, and for the very kind words about our work. Those of us at 350.org  aren't so much an organization as a campaign, and as such we've always looked for allies everywhere. And we've managed to find them not only across the environmental spectrum but, just as importantly, from less likely places--churches and synagogues and mosques and temples, sports teams and theater troupes. When we organized our global day of action last October--which CNN called "the most widespread day of political action in the planet's history"--it involved 5,200 demonstrations in 181 countries. Around the world we worked easily and cooperatively with lots of big green groups as well as thousands of organizers from tiny local campaigns, and people who'd never done anything at all.
We were, sometimes, a little surprised at how hard it was to get buy-in to our campaign from some of the big American environmental groups. This piece might explain some of the reasons, but we're not privy to their councils in those ways. Our guess is that history had something to do with it too--it's worth remembering, as Hari points out, that these groups were set up and scaled to fight much smaller battles, doing the noble work of saving particular canyons or passing remediating laws. It's a whole 'nother level to try and take on fossil fuel, the center of the economy. Using the Sierra Club as an example, it should be noted that even if the front office didn't like what we were doing, chapters all across America and around the world engaged with the 350 campaign in really great ways, helping pull off rallies and demonstrations. The same was true of many other groups. Which is good, because we're a tiny outfit--a couple of dozen young people and one rapidly aging writer, spread out across a big planet. Immodestly speaking, we're good at what we do, but not good enough to replace other organizations. Our real strength, of course, is the amazing volunteers who make the work happen everywhere--including places you're not supposed to be able to do this work. If you check out the pictures at 350.org, one of the things you'll be struck by is the fact that environmentalism is no longer something for rich white people. Most of our colleagues are black, brown, Asian, poor, young--because that's who most of the world is.
One key battle that lies ahead for American groups is passing legislation to finally do something about our enormous contribution to the planet's rapid warming: when we talk to our organizers in Addis Ababa or Beijing or Quito or pretty much everywhere in between, they say that American legislation is vital before anyone else will take real steps. Our movement-building history--beginning with the StepItUp campaign in 2007, which organized 1400 rallies in all fifty states--would indicate that it's easier to try to rally people around bold and ambitious goals that would really safeguard our future. The lobbying in DC will go more easily if there's a real movement around the country making senators feel at least a little inclined towards action, and that movement can only be built behind legislation that would truly change the system.
Copenhagen was a very serious drag--still, it was wonderful to see 117 nations endorsing the 350 target. True, they were the poorer and more vulnerable nations; we've still got persuade the real fossil fuel addicts. But the good news is everyone gets another chance to help out, all over the world. Working in collaboration with our UK friends at the 10:10 movement, we've set October 10 as the date for a global-scale Work Party, with people across the planet putting up solar panels and insulating houses, all with a 350 theme. The point is not that we're going to solve climate change one house or solar panel at a time--unfortunately, that's not mathematically possible. But we can use the occasion to send a distinctly political message to our leaders: we're doing our work, why aren't you? If we can get up on the roof of the school with hammers, surely you can find the strength to do your work in the Senate, or the General Assembly. If leaders simply won't lead, then we'll have to lead for them. We hope everyone will join in, from big groups and small. Working together is fun and empowering, or so we've found.
Back to list 
The Nature Conservancy
Karen Foerstel, director, climate media relations
The article "The Wrong Kind of Green " offers readers in inaccurate and incomplete picture of the role deforestation plays in climate change and the way in which environmental and conservation organizations are fighting for policies to address global warming. For the full story, visit www.nature.org/climatechange .
Back to list 
Johann Hari's unwarranted allegations against the late Jay Hair do your magazine and the environment he loved a great disservice. Mr. Hari claims that Jay Hair, former President of the National Wildlife Federation from 1981-1995, made a pact with the devil in the form of corporations in order to "suck millions" out of these companies for the benefit of his organization. What he did as head of the National Wildlife Federation was form a corporate council in which he tried to open a dialogue between environmentalists and corporations. There were dues of a very modest amount essentially covering the expenses of the meetings. This effort to reach out to all segments of society marked Jay's career from beginning to end. He did not believe it was impossible to have a vigorous and productive economy and a clean environment. He wanted to open communications between those who rarely talked in the hopes of finding common ground.
It is possible to believe that such common ground does not exist and therefore is unworthy of pursuing but to suggest those who do are somehow selling out to the devil is utter nonsense. It does a great disservice to those who try.
As first and fifth Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, I had known Jay for most of his active life as an environmentalist. He would often sue the agency that I head but we always had a straight forward honest relationship. I can personally testify to Jay's high level of integrity and courage. Mr. Hari's sloppy research does a great disservice to a lifelong defender of the environment.
It is too bad an honest discussion of the advisability of corporations and those concerned about the environment working together so often deteriorates into poorly researched accusations.
Back to list 
Johann Hari, reporter
It is simply a fact that Jay Hair kick-started the process of environmental groups partnering with and taking money from the world's worst polluters. It is also a fact that this process has been taken much further by other groups like Conservation International and The Nature Conservancy, and has ended with their missions becoming deeply corrupted, in ways I described in great detail in my article. This account of what has happened is not just my view--it's the view of America's most distinguished climate scientist, Professor James Hansen, the whistler-blower Christine MacDonald, and of virtually all the environmental groups that don't take money from polluters.
I am perfectly prepared to accept that Hair was a fine person in his personal life and had some positive motives. Of course his early death is tragic. But many people who have made harmful misjudgments have also had some some admirable achievements in their lives. In public debate, we have to be able to expose the harm they did and show how it continues, or we cannot make sense of the world and prevent even more harm. Is John Adams seriously suggesting that since the dead cannot answer us, we should hold back in our criticism of their actions? How could any serious discussion of how the world came to be as it is take place under such an omertà?
The apology Leah Hair demands is in fact due from the "green" groups who have chosen to take polluter cash and have betrayed their own mission. If she wishes to preserve the best of her husband's legacy rather than the worst, she should direct her anger at them--rather than at journalists honestly describing how this corruption began.
Rather than engage with the serious issues I raised, Carl Pope sadly plays the old politician's trick of denying charges I did not make. Where did I say the Sierra Club doesn't oppose coal? Nowhere. In fact, I did the opposite, writing that "there is an inspiring grassroots movement against coal power plants in the United States, supported by the Sierra Club."
I went on to describe some plain facts--that under his leadership, the Sierra Club vehemently opposed a lawsuit to force the US government's policies into line with climate science by returning us to 350ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Pope doesn't even try to justify this in his response, even though it was the most serious criticism of the club in my article.
The Center for Biological Diversity describes this behavior accurately as throwing "climate science out the window," and Jim Hansen--the very man Pope waves as a papal authority--describes it as "shocking" and "abominable." So, yes, the Sierra Club opposes coal in many places and at many times--but it is a matter of record that when there was a lawsuit to ensure the dramatic scale- back we need to preserve a safe climate, they lined up with former Bush administration members to mock and condemn it. I would like to hear Pope offer a serious explanation, rather than name-calling about Lewis Carroll.
Pope also gives an account of the Clorox scandal that is contradicted by his own staff. As Christine MacDonald exposes in her book Green, Inc., the company approached Pope and said they would give the Sierra Club a cut of their profits if they could use the club's logo and brand on their new range of cleaning products. MacDonald reports that Pope gave the go-ahead without making a rigorous effort to check they were genuinely more green than their competitors. The club's own toxics committee co-chair, Jessica Frohman, was very clear about this, saying: "We never approved the product line."
It is a disturbing example of how corporate cash has perverted the behavior of even as admirable a green group as the Sierra Club--and may be the reason why Pope is being replaced with a leader from the more serious and science-based wing of the environmental movement. Its members certainly deserve better than this.
If there are so many "inaccuracies" in my description of TNC, why can't they name a single one? Do they think the banal propaganda they link to is an answer?
Yet this is not the only glaring hole in these responses (apart, of course, from the arguments of Greenpeace, who refuses polluter cash). Do none of these people feel any concern that the leading environmental groups in America are hoovering up cash from the worst polluters and advocating policies that fall far short of what scientists say we need to safely survive the climate crisis? Do they really think there is nothing to discuss here?
Back to list