Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Sierra Club Says No Connection Between Support For Doyle And His Clean Air Initiatives

There's a goofy story circulating claiming staffers at the DNR said there would have to be a clean air quid pro quo at the expense of utilities in Wisconsin because the Sierra Club endorsed Gov. Jim Doyle in 2006 - - an allegation the Governor and the Sierra Club deny.

The truth is that on environmental issues, Doyle has been something of a moderate, and relations between his offices and some environmental groups have been tepid, and distant.

But does anyone seriously think the Sierra Club was going to endorse Republican Mark Green, who ran with the support of the Bush administration and took a job in that administration after Doyle won re-election?

Or that some email chatter means much of anything?

Let's look at the record:

To his credit, Doyle did expand the Stewardship Fund and its purchase of open space, but he disappointed conservationists with eased permitting for construction near rivers and lakes, for example, and has also pushed greater spending on highway expansion.

In fact, the Sierra Club went to court and helped force the Doyle administration to clean up a big Madison air and water polluter - - the UW Charter Street power plant.

Little wonder that the Sierra Club and other groups have banded together as we speak in support of legislation that takes away the gubernatorial authority to appoint the Department of Natural Resources Secretary - - giving the lie to those who think the Sierra Club and Doyle are secretly working hand in glove.

Charlie Sykes was in full rant about the Sierra Club and Doyle this morning, saying that Doyle is corrupt, and that state government is for sale.

Somehow cleaner air for the public is now dirty politics - - all because of some email chatter.



Anonymous said...

Maybe there are more absurd news stories this year, but I haven't seen one. State government takes important step to help clean air. Sierra Club, an evironmental organization, wanted this. If there's a scandal lurking in those two sentences, it went right over this reader's head.

Anonymous said...

Sadly, at the hearing on the changing the way the DNR Sec. is selected there was no discussion about environmental regulations. The preferred criteria for most who want to see change is..."do you have a hunting license."

The result looks like the DNR will end up with someone who knows nothing about the very difficult and complicated issues of environmental regulations and with someone who's got "blood on their boots" and can tie a nice lure.