Consistently Green
What do you think would happen if a local Nordstrom store decided not to accept return merchandise from customers, or if a local Starbucks decided not to honor the company’s diversity policy? Do you think the folks at headquarters would demur, and say that local activism is a source of the company’s strength, or that the company did not like to take a Stalinist approach in dealing with local issues? No. Yet, the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society are both spending lots of their donors’ money lobbying congress to require utilities to use more renewable energy while their local affiliates simultaneously oppose wind and solar projects because wind turbines threaten birds or transmission lines run through deserts. When asked to explain these apparently contradictory efforts, representatives use the “local activism” or “Stalinist” excuses. See "Green Projects Generate Splits in Activist Groups," WSJ December 13, 2007 p. B1.
I don’t think asking for a bit of consistency is Stalinist. Perhaps Audubon and The Sierra Club (both organizations I have contributed to in the past) should employ something like the Natural Step Framework to evaluate energy projects before they allow their local chapters to take a stand. Then they could defend what may appear to be inconsistent positions rationally, rather than claiming that requiring local affiliates to act consistently would be Stalinist.
