As a member of the Sierra Club, a member supported organization, who's worked against a number of morally questionable polluters I find some of the comments amusing. That's one organization that has supported rail. Real environmentalism is fine, and there are plenty of things that need to be fixed.

Of course, when I financially support a cause I'm fine with having my name associated with it. And, I support pending legislation to make every "tax exempt" advocacy organization that takes more than a $200 donation to report who gave it. Then these tax exempt "advocacy" groups, trying to influence our public debate, will all operate in the light of day? And, we will know what special interest opposes the railroad and which special interest supports the railroad, then people will be able to decide on the legitimacy of an argument on its merits, not who's paying for the loudest PR.

I'm okay with a legally permitted facility shipping its products, I am not fine with thousands to trucks on the road spewing diesel and sucking up oil. I guess it's immoral to mine gravel and ship it by rail, but perfectly moral to mine it and spew out green house gases, or toxic soot when shipping it by truck? If you have a good case for shutting down the mine, then do it. If not, then who's the hypocrit, for using that to stop the railroad? If I am a hypocrit for that, well, maybe at least I'm not any worse than some others?

I have no problem with wealthy donors or poor donors, I have a problem with secretly funded "astroturf" activism. And I have a problem with, emotional, psuedo scientific, self styled, self serving, nimby environmentalism, that doesn't actually seem to care much about the envirnoment, at all.