Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Lobbying, PR and greenwashing · United States · 2007–2012

Sierra Club donations from Chesapeake Energy

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 2 none on record · 1 insufficient · 1 not measured · 1 disputed See the gaps

From 2007 the Sierra Club received about 26 million dollars from the head of gas producer Chesapeake Energy and associated people for its campaign against coal. The club later refused a further 30 million dollars.

about $26mDonations to the Sierra Club from Chesapeake Energy's head and associates, 2007 onward
Sources vary between "over $25 million" and $26.1 million.

Status As of the latest dated source reviewed (2016): donations reported as ended; no ruling or investigation found.

What?
An environmental organisation received about 26 million dollars from the head of a gas producer for its campaign against coal. MIT Technology Review
Where?
United States. MIT Technology Review
When?
2007 onward; sources give 2007–2010 or 2007–2012. MIT Technology Review
Who?
Gained
  • Sierra Club — Funding for its Beyond Coal campaign. MIT Technology Review
  • Chesapeake Energy — A campaign against coal, a rival fuel to natural gas.
Lost
None on record
Harmed
None on record
Why?
Not stated in the sources reviewed.
How?
Donations from the chief executive of Chesapeake Energy and associated individuals went to the club's anti-coal campaign; the club's executive director defended gas as a bridge fuel in the same period.
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

From 2007 the Sierra Club, a US environmental organisation, received donations of about 26 million dollars from Chesapeake Energy's chief executive and associated individuals, according to MIT Technology Review. The money went to the club's campaign against coal-fired power, known as Beyond Coal.

Natural gas is described in the sources as the rival fuel to coal. In the same period the club's executive director, Carl Pope, defended gas as a bridge fuel, and made joint promotional trips with the company's chief executive, according to the sources reviewed.

The sources report that the club later stopped taking the gas money and turned down a further 30 million dollars. The dates given for the period of donations vary between sources, from 2007–2010 to 2007–2012.

The amount is reported differently across sources: "over 25 million dollars" in some and 26.1 million dollars in others.

  1. 2007Donations from Chesapeake Energy's chief executive and associates to the Sierra Club begin
  2. 2010Reported date on which the Sierra Club stopped accepting the gas money (reported; not independently verified)

What was said

Claims, in the words of those who made them.

Where accounts differ

Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.

How much did the Sierra Club receive?
Press and investigations
MIT Technology Review

About 26 million dollars, with a further 30 million dollars refused.

MIT Technology Review

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

  • Natural gas as a "bridge fuel" between coal and renewable energy
    American Gas Association, in 1981 and 2008; later defended by Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, during the donation period

Recorded

  • Donations of about 26 million dollars from Chesapeake Energy's head and associates for the club's anti-coal campaign; a further 30 million dollars was refused.
  • Sources give the total as "over 25 million dollars" and as 26.1 million dollars.
  • A 2011 study by Howarth and colleagues argued that methane leakage weakens the bridge-fuel argument.

In court and with insurers

Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

Lawsuits and rulings

No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.

Insurers

No insurer decision on record.

What nature saw

Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

Donations received
about $26m
From Chesapeake Energy's head and associates, for the anti-coal campaign (MIT Technology Review)
Further offer refused
$30m
Reported as declined by the club

What we don't know

Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.

Nature

  • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.

Accounts

  • Disputed How much did the Sierra Club receive?

Record

  • None on record The exact total is not settled: sources give "over 25 million dollars" and 26.1 million dollars.
  • Insufficient The year in which the club stopped the donations is reported as 2010 in some sources and the record is given as 2007–2012 in others; the Sierra Club's own statement on the matter was reported but not independently verified.
  • None on record No response from Chesapeake Energy is on record in the sources reviewed.

Did the harm stop?

The sources report that the club stopped the donations and refused a further 30 million dollars; the date is given as 2010 in some sources.

Who paid?

Not stated in the sources reviewed.

Sources

Voices on record: — Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations— Communities and civil society— Researchers

Press and investigations

Connected cases

Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.