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]