A Green Party presence guarantees the Sierra Clubs issues will be voiced. Read our platform at www.gp.org. We cannot expect "major party" candidates to champion the environment when they depend on funding from the very corporations that despoil our forests, air, and oceans. Like your members, most Greens are motivated by passion for our planet, not by partisanship. Both groups are committed to electing progressive leaders for an environmentally sane America.
Divisive diatribes wont defeat Bushism. Lets instead insist on instant-runoff voting, where voters rank their choices so it takes a real majority, not just a Supreme Court majority, to win. That way, we can get environmental issues into the dialogue and environmentalists into the White House.
Rather than pick on the few who vote Green, focus on the many who dont vote at all. When 60 percent of the electorate choose "none of the above," its because of the vacuity of the two bigger parties. Want green votes? Offer a vision that reconciles economy with ecosystem. And a way to get there.
As an idealist who briefly flirted with Green Party activism in 2000, I learned the hard way that we are far from ready for a three-party system, and that not accepting that reality has dire consequences. Ralph Nader continuously insinuated that Al Gore was essentially the same candidate as George Bush because both had large corporate underwriters. This claim has proven to be patently untrue.
Editors note: In December Ralph Nader announced that he will not be the Green candidate for president in 2004. He held open the possibility of running as an independent, however.
In the same issue we failed to credit the Heritage Forests Campaign (www.ourforests.org) for information on the map "A United Nation."
In "Hazards of Hydration", we cited a study about single-use water bottles that appears to have been flawed. While reusing these #1 PET bottles is not a good idea because of risk of bacterial contamination, you probably neednt worry about them releasing the chemical DEHA.