Ned Grossnickle ... August 9, 2000

What has Gore done on environmental issues?

He has very limited power as VP - everybody knows the President has the power and the VP is the brunt of jokes for lacking power. But here are just two things - He pledged at the 1994 Cairo Conference the the US would do their fair share to support international family planning which would be $800 - $900 million/year. If he had the support of the Congress, he would have gotten that support. However, when Newt and friends took power after the 1994 election, they were hostile to international family planning and cut it from $541.6M/yr in FY 1995 (10/94-9/95) to $356M/yr in FY 1996. Then the Republicans imposed "metering" on the funding which meant that no more than 8% could be spent in any one month, or 96% or 12 months. The last 4% had to be carried over to the next year. Then Chris Smith led the charge to totally eliminate int'l fam plan and to impose the GAG RULE (Mexico City Policy of Reagan). All of these have been fought by Gore and by Rep. Maloney, NY (Dem.) and others in close votes.

Remember, it was Gore (not Clinton) who represented the US at the 1994 Cairo Conference (ICPD).

Besides population issues, Clinton/Gore have (1) set aside more land for national parks and wilderness areas than any administration since Teddy Roosevelt, (2) successfully fought off the oil development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by big oil - no small matter - the last great undeveloped frontier in the US. I'm sure you are aware that if big trucks and oil drilling equipment passes over the tundra of the ANWR it will destroy it for decades if not centuries. Tundra is a fragile biome that recovers very slowly from human disturbance because of the very slow growth rates and short growing season of the plants. IF BUSH GETS ELECTED, HE WILL DEFINITELY SUPPORT OIL DEVELOPMENT IN THE ANWR. GORE WILL VIGOROUSLY OPPOSE IT.

I hope you feel good by making your symbolic vote for Nader and help Bush win and then watch the ANWR get its oil developed in an effort to "reduce our dependance on foreign oil". In addition, Bush will support oil development in the nearshore ocean by trying to relax current regulations. Gore will not support any such relaxation.

There are many other matters but I don't have any more time. It seems obvious to both the Sierra Club and to me that if you really care about the environment, you will vote for Al Gore. Nader is very idealistic, has no experience and almost no chance of getting elected, is a great fighter of big companies but even if elected, would get nowhere with more than 2/3's of the House and Senate against major disincentives for big corporations. In addition, Nader's environmental record is non-existant and it is very doubtful to me that it would be stronger than Gore's. You complain that Gore didn't do much on the environment - let me asure you that Nader would get even less done because there is a huge percentage of American political money that would run ads to defeat whatever he tried to accomplish. Do you remember when Clinton tried to change the health insurance in 1993? The money came out of the woodwork for ads that created fear, a very strong emotion, in many Americans that defeated Clinton's suggested health program. That is exactly what will happen on environmental issues if Nader were elected. Most Americans view Nader as too extreme and money will defeat whatever he wants to accomplish.

By the way, this week Gore/Lieberman stated that the first thing they will work on after taking office is a bill on campaign finance reform. Bush opposes campaign finance reform. Without it, the Naders of the world have almost no chance to get anywhere. On National Public Radio today they stated that over 95% of all political contributions are given by corporations and the wealthiest 1% of individuals in the US. Fred, do you really think campaign finance reform has a better chance with Bush in office due to your "feel good" Nader vote?