I received this candidate survey on the population/sprawl ballot issue on
the BoD Candidates Open Forum Listserve. I will forward all messages from
this list.
______________________
From: Automatic digest processor <[log in to unmask]>
To: Recipients of BOD-CANDIDATES-OPEN-FORUM digests
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject: BOD-CANDIDATES-OPEN-FORUM Digest - 19 Feb 2001 to 16 Mar 2001
(#2001-3)
Date: Sat, Mar 17, 2001, 2:02 AM
There are 3 messages totalling 300 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Response from BOD candidates Dobson, Aumen, Ferenstein on population
2. Response from BOD candidate Dick Fiddler on population questions
3. BOD candidate David Wells' response to population questions
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the BOD-CANDIDATES-OPEN-FORUM list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:13:16 -0700
From: Fred Elbel <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Response from BOD candidates Dobson, Aumen, Ferenstein on
population
I recently ask all of the BOD candidates two questions on
population. Below are responses to these questions from
candidates Ed Dobson, Nick Aumen,and Jennifer Ferenstein.
** Question 1. The Census Bureau project that if current trends continue,
U.S. population will double from our present 283 million within the
lifetimes of children born today.
Do you feel that the Sierra Club should do more, less, or just about the
same to address U.S. population growth?
Specifically what, if anything, would you recommend the Club do?
** Question 2. Members will vote on the following question on their=
ballots:
Whereas the Sierra Club has made reducing sprawl a national priority
campaign; and Whereas population growth is an important driving force of
sprawl development in most areas; and Whereas stabilizing the U.S.
population has been Sierra Club policy since 1969; Therefore be it
resolved: The Sierra Club shall emphasize both regional and national
population stabilization as essential components in all Sierra Club sprawl
materials and programs.
What is your position on this ballot question? Do you support it or oppose
it, and for what reasons?
Since others may be interested in your response to
these questions, may I forward your response to others, publish it on
discussion lists, etc?
=3D=3D=3D=3D response from Ed Dobson =3D=3D=3D=3D
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001
:
:
:
From: Edward M Dobson <[log in to unmask]>
No question in my mind. The Club needs to do more.
And feel free to share my response.
I am voting FOR the ballot question. The concept is a great
challenge. Ever since we dropped our early population slogan,
"Stop at two and adopt a few," there has been a vacuum within
the population movement nationally. Some organization with
a large base and a sense of dealing with the media needs to
link population and sprawl as an educational program. The
Sierra Club has the intellectual skills to connect population
and sprawl in a level-headed manner. Passing this ballot
measure will require a harmonizing of advocacy and common
sense. The misgivings expressed in "Vote NO" position
statement should be taken seriously for purposes of the
harmonizing. I will vote FOR the population/sprawl ballot
measure, as David Brower would have, and participate in
the harmonizing.
Our Board meeting in Brownsville/Matamoros in February
was a rude awakening as to the millions of Mexicans now
crowding the border, drawn by NAFTA's maquiladoras, and
overwhelming every resource. We are turning the border into
a vision from India. As the piece below indicates, even the
media are overcoming the taboos against discussion.
For more, see the NYTimes front page, 2-11-01 if memory serves.
[attached article not included here].
Sierra Club fought NAFTA for the above reason, among others,
but other groups, e.g. National Wildlife Federation, endorsed
NAFTA. We are desperately inconsistent. You are on the
right track. Population issues are coming back, through the
grassroots or not. Groups and Chapters need to send national
the message, but it will be heard regardless. Advocacy is the key.
=3D=3D=3D=3D response from Nick Aumen =3D=3D=3D=3D
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001
From: Aumen <[log in to unmask]>
ANSWER: My positions on the sprawl/population and the
grazing ballot questions are =93no=94 for the same reasons
explained in the opposition statements printed in the
ballot. I do believe that many of our environmental problems
are rooted in overpopulation, but that this is a global
problem which calls for global solutions =AD not barriers to
immigration. And, the Sprawl Campaign already incorporates
population messages in their program. Regarding the grazing
question, the Board already has adopted a protective, yet
flexible, policy which was developed with broad support from
a wide spectrum of Club leaders, including supporters of the
original no-grazing petition. I oppose the micromanagement
of our national campaigns that these ballot questions propose,
and believe that the campaigns are best led by their very
capable and knowledgeable volunteer and staff leaders.
> Since others may be interested in your response to these
> questions, may I forward your response to others, publish
> it on discussion lists, etc?
YES
=3D=3D=3D=3D Response from Jennifer Ferenstein =3D=3D=3D=3D
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001
From: Jen Ferenstein <[log in to unmask]>
I would prefer that individuals contact me directly rather than
being sent information broadly. Thank you for respecting my request.
=3Dend=3D
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:19:54 -0700
From: Fred Elbel <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Response from BOD candidate Dick Fiddler on population questions
I recently ask all of the BOD candidates two questions on
population. Below is candidate Dick Fiddler's response to these questions.
** Question 1. The Census Bureau project that if current trends continue,
U.S. population will double from our present 283 million within the
lifetimes of children born today.
Do you feel that the Sierra Club should do more, less, or just about the
same to address U.S. population growth?
Specifically what, if anything, would you recommend the Club do?
-- Response from Richard Fiddler: --
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:29:31 -0800
Subject: Re: Question on your position on Club policy
From: Fiddlers <[log in to unmask]>
To: Fred Elbel
My view is that overpopulation is a crucial element of global and
national environmental problems. It is, however, one of the most difficult
to effectively approach head-on, probably because the issue evokes so many
fundamental personal, cultural and religious beliefs. For the same reasons,
the issue has to be carefully handled within the Club so that working on it
enhances the Club's unity and strength rather than being divisive and
isolating. I know this has proven difficult for the Club in recent years,
and I regret the bad feeling which has sometimes inhibited our ability to go
forward together.
Nonetheless, population is a major program of the Sierra Club, with staff
and an active volunteer committee working on it. While it is not addressing
all the issues which many members would prefer, it is a thriving program. I
strongly support the efforts of the Club to stabilize global population, to
ensure universal access to family planning, to provide education on
population issues, to promote more equity in working conditions, freedom,
and living standards worldwide (thus in the long term reducing immigration
pressure), and to address per-capita consumption, the other principal
element of personal environmental impact on our planet. I believe the
Club's Population Program is a valuable part of our work and support its
continuance and expansion.
** Question 2. Members will vote on the following question on their
ballots:
Whereas the Sierra Club has made reducing sprawl a national priority
campaign; and Whereas population growth is an important driving force of
sprawl development in most areas; and Whereas stabilizing the U.S.
population has been Sierra Club policy since 1969; Therefore be it
resolved: The Sierra Club shall emphasize both regional and national
population stabilization as essential components in all Sierra Club sprawl
materials and programs.
What is your position on this ballot question? Do you support it or oppose
it, and for what reasons?
-- Response from Richard Fiddler: --
I oppose the population/sprawl ballot measure, because I don't think it
will help advance either issue. It raises a broader question: How does the
Sierra Club best succeed in protecting the environment? I believe there are
several crucial elements. The Club must be broadly united behind its
campaigns. The Club must articulate its message in a way which brings
others in the national community to share our vision and agree with our
solutions. The Club must think strategically about its priorities and
alliances. It is not enough to just be "right".
So my principal reason for opposing the population measure is not because I
disagree with the good intentions of its proponents but because I think its
adoption would in fact hurt rather than help our mission to protect the
environment. The proposal would introduce population into all our campaign
materials about sprawl, a course which neither our sprawl campaign leaders
nor our population campaign leaders believe would be effective in advancing
either issue. There may be locations where it would work very well; where
using the population message would be effective, I would support including
it. But the judgment as to whether a particular strategy or theme would
actually work is best left to the local leaders who must live with it. The
ballot measure would take this sensitive strategic decision out of their
hands, and that's not a formula for Sierra Club success.
Richard Fiddler
[log in to unmask]
P.S. I'm happy to have my views shared with others. But since these issues
are complex, I would appreciate it if, to the extent practicable, they were
copied in their entirety. Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:18:37 -0700
From: Fred Elbel <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: BOD candidate David Wells' response to population questions
I recently asked all BOD candidates two questions on population. Below is
candidate David Wells' response to these questions.
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001
From: David J Wells <[log in to unmask]>
** Question 1. The Census Bureau project that if current trends continue,
U.S.
population will double from our present 283 million within the lifetimes of
children born today.
Do you feel that the Sierra Club should do more, less, or just about the
same to address U.S. population growth?
Specifically what, if anything, would you recommend the Club do?
Dave Wells replies: I support the present Club policyand efforts on
Population, as well as its decision not to establish a position either for
or against immigration. I think the present policy as given on the Club
Website, properly emphasizes the need for globally based action rather than
narrowly focusing on the US alone.
** Question 2. Members will vote on the following question on their
ballots:
Whereas the Sierra Club has made reducing sprawl a national priority
campaign; and
Whereas population growth is an important driving force of
sprawl development in most areas; and Whereas stabilizing the U.S.
population has been Sierra Club policy since 1969; Therefore be it
resolved:
The Sierra Club shall emphasize both regional and national
population stabilization as essential components in all Sierra Club sprawl
materials and programs.
What is your position on this ballot question? Do you support it or
oppose it, and for what reasons?
David Wells responded:
I oppose the policy based on its wording. As presently constructed, it
makes population discussion mandatory for all sprawl discussions. I find
this to be unnecessarily restrictive and agree with the opposing opinion
statement that some sprawl-related problems can be more influenced by
inefficient land use than population increases.
> Since others may be interested in your response to
> these questions, may I forward your response to others, publish it on
> discussion lists, etc?
Yes
------------------------------
End of BOD-CANDIDATES-OPEN-FORUM Digest - 19 Feb 2001 to 16 Mar 2001
(#2001-3)
****************************************************************************
**
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]
|
