Talk:Natural Resources Defense Council

POV tag
I removed the POV tag as the advertisement tag allready implies POV. If their are specific issues beyond it reading like an advertisement that someone feels adds to the non-NPOV of article such as lack of criticism of NRDC then please explain on the talk page. --Cab88 05:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone put it back, and I've taken it out again. The advert tag is sufficient.  Furthermore, the POV tag does not seem appropriate unless there is a discussion of the NPOV on the talk page. Chovain 04:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That makes absolutely no sense. 72.144.150.244 09:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One POV issue, which I addressed just now, instead of placing a tag, is the characterization of NRDC as "non-partisan" - it's a fixture of the leftist branch of the ecology lobby, works hand-in-glove with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to the extent that NRDC staffers Kristensen and Oelrich have a regular column with the Bulletin, which while a handy resource for students of nuclear weapons policy, is also a handy reference for political activists. It's MUCH easier to correct obvious abuses like this than to tag, wait for a discussion which never occurs (I noticed the latest changes in this talk page are three years old), and then play edit war over NPOV tags.loupgarous (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "leftist" isn't a party. And your opinions about fixtures, branches, lobbies, etc. are completely irrelevant. -- Jibal (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Page revisions
Fair comment. Am responsible for the last edit of the piece, and will adjust this one now. Jcoifman 16:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Organization history
It would be interesting to include some information on this org's founding and history. ike9898 (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lack of any criticism
The credulity of the Wiki entry is hampered by a lack of any criticism of the NRDC 69.108.117.14 (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What? No "takers"?69.108.117.14 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Also, calling NRDC 'non-partisan' is horse****.  Due to their stance on unilateral nuclear disarmament, NRDC is inevitably partisan.


 * NRDC has a valid brief to criticize DoE and DoD on nuclear stewardship and fabrication operations with an impact on the ecology. It ought to be proud of any part it had in the closure of the Rocky Flats plutonium reprocessing plant, for example. I'm sort of puzzled why, when they boasted of so many less consequential matters, if they DID actually even just raise consciousness about what was going on at Rocky Flats, they deserve bragging points on it.


 * However, under Kristensen, Oelrich and the other people in their Nuclear project, NRDC has taken a broader stance toward nuclear disarmament and lobbying Congress against new nuclear weapon designs (some of which, like "nuclear bunker busters," are designed to transfer most of their energy to a buried target with a minimal fallout plume, and are hence friendlier to the Earth's ecology than the megaton-class silo-busters which would otherwise be used to destroy a hardened underground installation. A multi-megaton nuclear device in a ground burst mode would irradiate everything downwind of it for dozens or hundreds of miles with lethal fallout, and there are at present no alternatives to that (thanks in part to NRDC and the ecology lobby) outside that limited brief they have.


 * Opposition to nuclear bunker busters in a multilateral nuclear power world could very well lead to worse ecological catastrophes than either neutrality on the issue or holding an even-handed debate on it. But NRDC basically put themselves behind a partisan opposition to the technology despite its potential ecological benefits compared to the current alternatives on the shelf.


 * Unless they openly and candidly tell their contributors that they plan to spend contributions on nuclear disarmament activity, NRDC daily crosses the line into outright charity fraud.


 * Worse, the partisanship of NRDC on nuclear weapons policy counter-intuitively exposes innocent bystanders downwind of enemy buried command and control or nuclear weapons fabrication sites to WORSE ecological consequences than would ensue if our Department of Defense had available to it nuclear devices designed to engage underground sites with minimal fallout and other weapons effects away from the target site.


 * Finally, NRDC's partisan opposition to nuclear power has obvious and urgent adverse environmental consequences by requiring a global society now inextricably dependent (without massive starvation and other results of a global economic collapse) on dense energy such as hydrocarbon fuels to have not even the bridge to a renewable energy economy provided by nuclear power, which does not contribute to global warming in any significant fashion. A nuclear-electric-hydrogen economy, hopefully dominated by one of several cold fusion alternatives under development OTHER than the wasteful and dangerous thermonuclear option pushed by Big Government and Big Federally-Funded Physics, would be the very best way to go. The boron-11 + proton reaction possible in some cold-fusion designs under active development wouldn't even have much radioactive waste, since its core reactions are aneutronic.  But NRDC is basically planting its feet and seeking bans on nuclear power, period.


 * I invite discussion and argument to the contrary of my statements before I write a contrarian section to the NRDC article showing its potential adverse effects on Earth's ecology thanks to its partisan stances.loupgarous (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I decided to pursue a "middle way" and simply - in accordance with the tag on the article criticizing it for smacking of an NRDC press release - removed the laudatory and uncritical language from the original article. I also added some reference from authoritative sources (the Discover News clip refers to a NASA study showing that the net impact of nuclear power on the human ecology has been to save significant numbers of lives simply by not contributing to the air pollution problem) which contradict NRDC's stance that nuclear power isn't a viable solution to the need for energy-dense power sources which don't exacerbate global warming, and added the sentence "Other authorities on the subject disagree on that point."  Mostly, though, I pointed the article away from its gushing narration of NRDC's activities toward a more neutrally-worded summary where possible. loupgarous (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * These are all opinions, and have no place here. And editors have no business writing "a contrarian section to the NRDC article showing its potential adverse effects on Earth's ecology thanks to its partisan stances". -- Jibal (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted "non-partisan" from the description of NRDC at the head of the article
NRDC is not "non-partisan." It routinely coordinates its work with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and other antinuclear advocacy groups to the point that the heads of NRDC's Nuclear project have a regular column in the Bulletin; and in general its activities are designed to coordinate with Democratic and other leftist political parties' platforms.

Therefore, I deleted the text "non-partisan" from the article's lead paragraph. NRDC may believe themselves to be non-partisan, but their activity speaks otherwise.loupgarous (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"Non-partisan" has a specific meaning in American non-profit law, and NRDC is non-partisan as a matter of their tax status. Non-partisan does not mean that they don't take positions on issues, it means that they don't support specific political candidates and have various restrictions on their ability to lobby.73.128.248.133 (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If "non-partisan" actually is the legal term, I support putting it back in. Maybe we should clarify that this is a legal term and that they still take partisan sides on issues (obviously). Toad02 (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe "we" should learn what the role of a Wikipedia editor is and stop injecting our own political opinions into this page and into the article, as loupgarous in particular has done extensively. -- Jibal (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've put in the term 501(c)(3), as it is the legal term and more clear than "non-partisan." Toad02 (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The comments from loupgarous on this page are completely out of line and show them to have no idea what the role of a Wikipedia editor is. -- Jibal (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Logo Update
I am requesting that the logo for Natural Resources Defense Council be updated to reflect the new logo and brand identity. See here: http://secure3.convio.net/nrdc/images/content/pagebuilder/ntw-footer-logo.gif

12.232.101.6 (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. An updated logo has been uploaded as fair use and included on the page. -- dsprc   [talk]  22:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Natural Resources Defense Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.liu.edu/About/News/Polk/Previous.aspx#1983

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Natural Resources Defense Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100703194931/http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-announces-members-bp-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-and-offshore-drill to http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-announces-members-bp-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-and-offshore-drill

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing problems
I see a whole lot of problems with sourcing in this article.

1) Some self published sources used for objective information about the organization (as opposed to the organizations beliefs). These are things like budget, membership, and history. 2) Use of Wikipedia as a source. See user generated content under Reliable sources. 3) Lack of citations in some places that really should have citations. The first portion of history, which seems to be the more important part, lacks citations, and so does many of the programs.

I'm simply going to add one tag to the article, but, due to the slew of problems, I'm not positive which tag to add. Feel free to change the tag or delete it and separate it on to the sections that are problematic. I would really appreciate if the editors who wrote certain sections could work on the sourcing, especially because they have a much better idea where they got unsourced info from.

Happy editing! Toad02 (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for updates across page
Hi Wikipedia community. I work for NRDC, so I’d first like to note the conflict of interest. Please let me know if you have any questions. I’m also new to this side of Wiki so please don’t hesitate to let me know if I’m doing something incorrectly (e.g. Is it OK if I suggest deletions if the info makes the page feel old?) or sending too many requests.

I noticed that a lot of the information on this page is outdated. In some places, the information is incomplete and sourced to broken/archive links, which might mislead readers. I’d like to request edits to update the page and clear out the incomplete information. I hope you find my recommendations neutral/factual but let me know what you think. Below, I’ve listed the sections in the order they appear on the page.

INTRODUCTION: We have a Santa Monica office—not a Los Angeles office. https://www.nrdc.org/our-offices

We now have 700 staff (up from 600). https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/nrdc-2017-form-990.pdf

SIDEBAR UPDATES:

Membership (2018): over 3 million https://issuu.com/nrdc/docs/nrdc_2018_annual_report/80

Budget/Revenue (2018 annual report): $190 million https://www.nrdc.org/finances-and-annual-report https://issuu.com/nrdc/docs/nrdc_2018_annual_report/80

Staff (2017): 700 https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/nrdc-2017-form-990.pdf

HISTORY: The first paragraph on NRDC’s founding looks correct. Unfortunately, the 5 sentences after that feel really random (almost out of place) and outdated. Maybe Wiki users added these over the years because they’re personal favorites of theirs but NRDC has hundreds (or more!) of reports and partnerships.

My suggestion to keep the page from getting stale would be to simply erase these random mentions. Alternatively, maybe they could be replaced with more recent works. A few new reports that come to mind include Chain Reaction (antibiotics, https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2018/10/how-burger-chains-rate-on-antibiotic-free-beef.html?page=all) and Issue with Tissue (paper/deforestation, https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/Costco-toilet-paper-boreal-forest-sustainability-14079814.php)—which would both have a lot of external coverage that could be sourced here. There are also various reports about lead in drinking water, green finance, clean energy, food waste, and so on.

It might be worth adding here the affiliated but SEPARATE 501c4 organization: NRDC Action Fund. https://www.eenews.net/special_reports/shades_green/stories/1059991721 and https://www.nrdcactionfund.org/about/

PROGRAMS: Since this list was made, NRDC has reorganized/consolidated the majority of these programs into 4 main programs. Climate & Clean Energy; Healthy People & Thriving Communities; International (the information currently there looks fine!); and Nature. In addition, there’s the NRDC Science Center, Green Finance Center, and Litigation team. The information about La Onda Verde looks correct. The mention of Robert Kennedy Jr’s direct mail campaign is pretty random and outdated. It’s also unsourced. Maybe delete?

ONEARTH: Typo. It’s actually written with a lowercase o: onEarth

DIRECTORS: Looks like this was updated. Thank you, Wikipedia! Only the last sentence mentioning Frances Beinecke seems a little outdated/out of place. Might not be worth keeping without more context.

ISSUES: I checked the source page and it looks like this language is no longer in use. Maybe a better way to summarize the issues is by looking at Areas of Work here: https://www.nrdc.org/work

LEGISLATION: This is another tough section. NRDC’s legislative work grows/changes with every legislative session, so this feels pretty outdated and selective.

EFFECT ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: No suggestions.

SEE ALSO: I'm sure there's more to list for anyone interested. Climate change, Boreal Forest, Flint Water Crisis, etc

Thank you for your time, Caroline345 (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply 03-DEC-2019

 * Your edit request could not be implemented because the provided references are not formatted correctly. The citation style predominantly used by the Natural Resources Defense Council article is a combination of Citation Style 1 (CS1) mixed with plain references. The citation style used in the edit request consists of bare URL's. Any requested edit of yours which may be implemented will need to resemble either one of the two styles currently used in the article. (See WP:CITEVAR.) In the extended section below titled Citation style, I have illustrated two examples: one showing how the edit request was submitted, and another showing how requests should be submitted in the future:

Bare URL reference formatting: The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.[3]

References

1. 2.  3.

In the example above there are three URL's provided with the claim statements, but these URL's have not been placed using either Citation Style 1 or plain references, which are the two styles predominantly used by the Natural Resources Defense Council article. Using one of these styles for example, CS1, cthe WikiFormatted text should resemble the following:

Citation Style 1 formatting: The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin. Which displays as: The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.[3]

References

^ Sjöblad, Tristan. . Academic Press, 2019, p. 1. ^ Harinath, Paramjit. (2019)., Science, 51(78):46. ^ Uemura, Shū. . Academic Press, 2019, p. 2. </ol>

In the example above the references have been formatted according to Citation Style 1, which shows the author, the source's name, date, etc., all information which is lost when only the links are provided. As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, edit requests such as yours are generally expected to have this formatting done before the request is submitted for review.

Kindly resubmit the edit request below at your earliest convenience, taking care to ensure that it makes use of either CS1 or plain references (using ref tags). If you have any questions about this formatting please don't hesitate to ask myself or another editor.

Regards, Spintendo  12:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply 05-DEC-2019
[ Thank you for the note about the proper citation format! Revised request below.]

Hi Wikipedia community. I work for NRDC, so I’d first like to note the conflict of interest. Please let me know if you have any questions. I’m also new to this side of Wiki so please don’t hesitate to let me know if I’m doing something incorrectly (e.g. Is it OK if I suggest deletions if the info makes the page feel old?) or sending too many requests. I noticed that a lot of the information on this page is outdated. In some places, the information is incomplete and sourced to broken/archive links, which might mislead readers. I’d like to request edits to update the page and clear out the incomplete information. I hope you find my recommendations neutral/factual (I purposely did not propose specific text) but let me know what you think or if I can answer any questions. Below, I’ve listed the sections in the order they appear on the page. INTRODUCTION: We generally refer to it as our Santa Monica office, not Los Angeles office. We now have 700 staff. SIDEBAR UPDATES: Membership (2018): over 3 million Budget/Revenue (2018 annual report): $190 million Staff (2019): 700 HISTORY: The first paragraph on NRDC’s founding looks correct. Unfortunately, the 5 sentences after that feel really random (almost out of place) and outdated. Maybe Wiki users added these over the years because they’re personal favorites of theirs but NRDC has hundreds (or more!) of reports and partnerships. My suggestion to keep the page from getting stale would be to simply erase these random mentions. Alternatively, maybe they could be replaced with more recent works. A few new reports that come to mind include Chain Reaction (antibiotics ) and Issue with Tissue (paper/deforestation ). There are also various reports about lead in drinking water, green finance, stormwater infrastructure, clean energy, food waste, and so on. It might be worth adding here a mention of the affiliated but SEPARATE 501c4 organization: NRDC Action Fund. PROGRAMS: Since this list was made, NRDC has reorganized/consolidated into 4 main programs: Climate & Clean Energy; Healthy People & Thriving Communities; International (the information currently there looks fine!); and Nature. In addition, there’s the NRDC Science Center and Litigation team. The information about La Onda Verde looks correct. The mention of Robert Kennedy Jr’s direct mail campaign is pretty random and outdated. It’s also unsourced. Maybe delete? ONEARTH: Typo. It’s actually written with a lowercase o: onEarth DIRECTORS: Looks like this was updated. Thank you, Wikipedia! Here’s a nonNRDC source about that news Only the last sentence mentioning Frances Beinecke seems a little outdated/out of place. Might not be worth keeping without more context (e.g. Frances Beinecke served as NRDC's president from 2006 to 2015). ISSUES: This is a bit outdated. (e.g. Today, the term “climate change” is more commonly used than “global warming.”). The “areas of work” description on our website might be a better resource for this section. “We believe the world’s children should inherit a planet that will sustain them as it has sustained us. NRDC works to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water and the wild, and to prevent special interests from undermining public interests. Areas of work: Climate Change, Communities, Energy, Food, Health, Oceans, Water, The Wild” LEGISLATION: This is another tough section to keep up-to-date, neutral, and comprehensive. NRDC’s legislative work grows/changes with every legislative session, so this text feels pretty outdated and selective (that first bill is from 2013). Citing my COI, I think I should avoid rattling off a list of my own suggestions and unfortunately, I don’t have a link that conveniently compiles the latest legislative updates. In terms of something more recent, I did a quick search for some nonNRDC/neutral coverage and found an article quoting NRDC’s endorsement of 100% Clean Economy Act of 2019, H.R. 5221. EFFECT ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: No suggestions but will follow up if I get more info. SEE ALSO: I'm sure there's more to list for anyone interested. Climate change, Boreal Forest, Flint Water Crisis, etc

Thank you for your time, Caroline345 (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply 05-DEC-2019

 * In my previous review, I gave examples for how the request should be formatted. And while the citations have been formatted correctly, the rest of the request does not align with the need to state the requested changes in the form of "change x to y". For example, one of the requested changes states the following: I think I should avoid rattling off a list of my own suggestions and unfortunately, I don’t have a link that conveniently compiles the latest legislative updates. In terms of something more recent, I did a quick search for some nonNRDC/neutral coverage and found an article quoting NRDC’s endorsement of 100% Clean Economy Act of 2019, H.R. 5221. This is unacceptable as a way of requesting changes, because the verbatim text that the COI editor wishes to include has not been stated in the request. Many other areas of the request are also stated in a generalized way of them having changes needed to be made but not wording those changes using the desired verbatim text.
 * Please submit a new edit request which includes the verbatim text of anything to be added and removed, including the properly formatted references in both instances, and feel free to submit that as a new edit request below at your earliest convenience.

Regards, Spintendo  23:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply 02-JAN-2020
[ Happy new year! Thank you again for all your guidance and patience! I’ve revised my edit request below.]

Hi Wikipedia community. I work for NRDC, so I’d first like to note the conflict of interest. Please let me know if you have any questions. I’m also new to this side of Wiki so please don’t hesitate to let me know if I’m doing something incorrectly (e.g. Is it OK if I suggest deletions if the info makes the page feel old?) or sending too many requests. I noticed that a lot of the information on this page is outdated. In some places, the information is incomplete and sourced to broken/archive links, which might mislead readers. I’d like to request edits to update the page and clear out the incomplete information. I hope you find my recommendations neutral/factual (I purposely did not propose specific text) but let me know what you think or if I can answer any questions. Below, I’ve listed the sections in the order they appear on the page.

Within the introduction:

Please REPLACE “Los Angeles” with “Santa Monica”. In reference to staff, REPLACE “about 600” with “about 700”.

Within the sidebar, three updates:

UPDATE 1: Membership (2018): over 3 million UPDATE 2: Budget/Revenue (2018 annual report): $190 million UPDATE 3: Staff (2020): 700 Within the history section:

To freshen up content, I suggest REPLACING the section beginning with “In 2001, NRDC launched the Biogems…” ending with “petroleum dependence of the US” (the Green Day reference) WITH:

NRDC regularly publishes reports on issues including lead in drinking water, green finance, stormwater infrastructure, clean energy, food waste, and other environmental and public health issues. For instance, NRDC’s annual “Chain Reaction” report rates America’s biggest restaurant chains on the use of antibiotics in their supply chains. The “Issue with Tissue” report focuses on the negative impacts of the paper industry on Canada’s boreal forest.

In 2013, the NRDC Action Fund was launched as a separate but affiliated 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization which engages in advocacy and political activities for which the NRDC, a 501(c)(3) organization, faces certain legal limitations or restrictions.

Programs section:

NRDC has reorganized/consolidated since this last was made. Please REPLACE the entire bullet-pointed list with:

The Climate & Clean Energy program focuses on reducing the use of fossil fuels and increasing clean energy and energy efficiency as part of a broader campaign to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs, increase resiliency, and lower energy bills.

The Healthy People & Thriving Communities program focuses on quality of life issues. Its mission it to ensure that the benefits of a clean and healthy environment reach all parts of society, as well as future generations.

The Nature program focuses on protecting endangered species, as well as wild places and marine and aquatic ecosystems.

The International program works worldwide on biodiversity, habitat preservation, oceans, climate change, and other issues, often in conjunction with other programs. The program includes teams focused on Canada, China, India, and Latin America.

In addition, there is the Science Center, which supports the science behind NRDC’s programmatic work, and the Litigation team, which supports the organization’s programmatic work in the courtroom, particularly in the areas of environmental justice, air and water pollution, public health, and marine mammal protection.

NRDC’s La Onda Verde works to inform and involve Spanish-speaking Latinos in the environmental issues on which NRDC works.

onEarth section:

Please FIX typo in the three occasions the title appears: “OnEarth” should be written as “onEarth”

Directors section:

Please ADD nonNRDC source following the sentence about Gina McCarthy

I suggest DELETING the sentences following the first sentence and REPLACING WITH:

Former presidents of NRDC include Mitchell Bernard (interim, 2019 - 2020), Rhea Suh (2015 - 2019), Frances Beinecke (2006 - 2015), and John Adams (first executive director and then president until 2006).

Issues section:

Suggest DELETING this section, as it’s a bit outdated and the programs section serves the same function.

Legislation section:

NRDC’s legislative work grows/changes with every legislative session, so the current text feels a bit outdated and selective. Unfortunately, I don’t have a link that conveniently compiles the latest legislative updates. I suggest ADDING the more recent: In 2019, NRDC endorsed the 100% Clean Economy Act of 2019, H.R. 5221.

Effect on Administrative Law section: No suggestions.

See Also section:

Please ADD three new items: Climate change (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_(general_concept)), Boreal forest of Canada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boreal_forest_of_Canada), and Flint water crisis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis)

Thank you for your time! Caroline345 (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Reply 2-JAN-2020
Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes within the proposal review section below for information on each request. Spintendo 19:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I've used quotes from the NRDC time and time again in the many environmental articles I've worked on because they almost always seem to become involved in protests, especially of course since Trump was elected, but I've never actually read it (it was his latest plan to cut back EPA protections that brought me here today). Seeing how few good refs it is using, I thought it would be easy enough to find more but that has not been the case at all.  Now I see another editor is working with some requests.  I will leave the article till they are done and then come back and work on it with as much as I can find.  BTW NRDC, it seems the mag was discontinued in 2016, is that correct?  Gandydancer (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Evironmental benefits
So... this group originated to oppose the construction of a project that would eliminate the need to build possibly several power stations, with all the associated CO2 and other pollution, so that a mountain would continue to look pretty? At the expense of the acid rain, climate change, and all the other shit that Storm King would have reduced, apparently by a great deal, if it was going to be the world's largest hydro project. And they're an "environmental advocacy group"? If I were them I'd keep quiet about that story.

90.243.234.191 (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)