I'll cut the rest of the text just for space.
My question is whether or not anyone really thinks that US environmental
policy would be appreciably better off with Gore than Dubyah Bush. It
would seem at first blush that the answer is 'yes,' but given the rather
strong anti-environment congress I have to wonder.
I'm not impressed with Nader all that much. He is an ideologue and
rather narrow in vision. I was impressed with Gore's scope and depth of
knowledge about environmental issues even though I do not exactly agree
with his somewhat theocentric based ethic. While it is true that *if*
the people in Florida who voted for Nader *entirely* due to
environmental reasons had voted for Gore, Gore would be President today.
It is also true that if Gore had spent the time in Nevada, New Mexico
and Colorado (maybe some other states as well) that he spent in Florida
trying to defeat Bush on his brother's home ground, he would now be
President. Hind sight tends to be 20/20.
Anyway it looks more and more like we will need an environmental
disaster of biblical proportions to change the political atmosphere in
the US.
Steven
Self-awareness is not always good news.
Joseph Goldstein
|