What the downfall of an environmental powerhouse could mean for conservative policy

By EPN Staff

Over the past decade, some progressive movements have adopted rigid ideological positions that may be limiting their effectiveness on key issues. As a result, new opportunities for more pragmatic, market-based approaches to energy and environmental policy may be gaining traction.

The “New York Times” published a November exposé on the internal unraveling of the Sierra Club, which was once the largest grassroots environmental group in the United States. According to the Times, the Sierra Club has lost roughly 60% of its membership and supporter base since 2019, endured three rounds of layoffs and seen its political giving collapse. Its political spending, which passed $3 million in the 2020 cycle, vanished entirely as the Trump administration returned to power.

Yet as this environmental powerhouse has struggled, Republican lawmakers and other stakeholders have jumped on the opportunity to provide solutions appealing to the average American.

Why it matters

The Sierra Club's internal floundering created openings for Republicans and conservative state leaders to seize. In energy policy, this has taken an unexpected shift. Many GOP-led states are embracing nuclear power and market-friendly incentives for clean energy, such as tax credit monetization. But those Republican tax credits have steered away from funding consumer purchases of electric vehicles and focus on supporting carbon capture and clean technology that benefit more than the individual.

Additionally, conservatives have not simply defended fossil fuels but adopted an agenda that speaks to modern energy challenges with realism. They talk about clean capacity, grid resilience and economic competitiveness in an emerging landscape of data center demands and rising energy bills. 

Republicans in the red states of Texas and Ohio are shaping energy portfolios that lower emissions and boost economic activity by prioritizing results over progressive doctrine.

Mainstream environmental groups have seemed more invested in proving ideological purity, yet are now forced to pivot away from extremism. Conservatives increasingly occupy the space that “practical environmentalism” once held and are doing so in ways that set the tone for the coming decades in terms of infrastructure. Republicans are now shaping the conversation around reform and present themselves as the ones who are focused on addressing problems.

The bigger picture

The Sierra Club meltdown, the article points out, has been visible over the last 10 years. The once-focused group has embraced a catechism of ideological purity rather than a disciplined set of policy priorities. Instead of fighting the one battle front, the Sierra Club started fighting them all, the reporter noted.

While Trump’s first appearance in 2016 should have given environmental groups a clear line of attack, many embraced the sprawling social justice agenda, the article said. That agenda blurred climate, air quality and clean energy with race, gender, class and religious issues — the clearly defined dogmas of the moment.

Mission creep eventually set in.

Long-time Sierra Club members began to see the new civilizational doctrine as a distraction. Polling cited in and around the NYT piece showed many supported broader social justice goals in principle but consistently ranked climate change as their top priority and expressed concern that an expanded agenda would detract from environmental mission.

The article appeared in the Nov. 7, 2025 issue.