The DNC Agenda omits the environment as an important issue; speak out!

[biggertent]

Please tell the Democratic National Commitee to Add the Environment to the Party's Official Issues Agenda!

The DNC does not currently include the environment among the Party's official agenda issues listed on their web site, http://democrats.org/agenda.html. As a Democrat and an environmentalist, I feel this is a huge mistake that needs to be corrected immediately. It sends the wrong message at a time when environmental concerns are greater than ever.

If you too feel that this is a mistake, please take moment to sign this petition to the DNC Chairman, Howard Dean. Lets get the goal of a healthy environment back in the Democratic Party message where it belongs for 2006, 2008 and beyond. Thank you for your help!:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/123589822

[Not_Giving_Up]

1. Done n/t

[KT2000]

2. Environment = Public Health

Thanks for posting this. I don't know what it will take for people to realize that rising health care costs have a direct relationship to the quality of our air, water and food.

[Cha]

3. I heard Dean mention the

"Environment" when he spoke in Madison, Wisconsin the other night.

But, this is an excellent petition..signed.

"Please put The Environment on our party agenda..it is the most important issue we have and it will create new jobs and a better environment for our kids and our kids' kids, ad infinitum!

Thank you, Chairman Dean"

[xxqqqzme]

4. to hell with the petition

click on 'contact' 'n tell them what you think. No reason to use a 3rd party (even tho I signed it).

[FtWayneBlue]

5. done, and

done both. Thanks.

[thegreatwildebeest]

6. That should come as no surprise...

As a number of Democrats, including Diane Feinstein and the ever loved Clinton's, have been buddy-buddy with the large logging companies for years. Don't believe me? Lets look at the break down of both Hillary Clinton and Diane Feinsteins PAC finances, as according to Opensecrets.org.

Oil & Gas
$4,500
Cargill Inc
$1,000
Independent Oil Producers' Agency
($500)
Marathon Oil
$1,000
Occidental Petroleum
$3,000

Hmm. Occidental Petroleum? The guys who have to have American money and American troops flown in in order to protect their pipeline in Colombia from leftist rebels? That doesn't sound like an environmental position to be accepting money from them. And you should see the donations from agribusiness...but let us continue to Clinton.


Oil & Gas
$1,000
Petroleum Marketers Assn
$1,000
Misc Energy
$3,500
General Electric
$3,000
National Assn of Water Companies
$500

National Assn of Water Companies? You mean the private companies that own what should be municpally owned water? That doesn't sound like an environmentally sound decision. I wonder if she will increase water privitization and deregulation? Probably.

[gulfcoastliberal]

7. Signed - this must be the work of the DLC

I can't see any reason except kow-towing to corporate contributors for not including the environment as part of the DNC agenda. The DLC must go.

[funflower]

8. Welcome to DU, biggertent!

:toast:

[NNadir]

9. I have signed this petition.

[blindpig]

10. So the Democratic Party doesn't care about the Environment

and the Republican Party actively works to destroy it ASAP.

In the end this is about campaign financing, aka legal bribery. The sell out whores of the supposed party of the people are as bad as those they pretend to oppose.

We will be remembered(if there's anyone to do the remembering) as the stupidest, greediest people who ever lived on Earth.

[IrateCitizen]

11. The truth is, very few people vote on "the environment"...

And, I would argue further, in deference to Adam Werbach, that speaking of "the environment" as some category of issues is a huge problem on the left. Doing so has only served to set up the false dichotomy of "jobs vs. environment".

Rather, it needs to be made a central piece of a greater VISION. Caring for the environment that sustains us ranks up there with caring for our future generations and preparing them for the world.

Environmentalism, as it has existed since the 1960's, is dead. It needs to be reborn again, not as a single issue, but as an integral part of an overall progressive framework of values and vision for the future.

[DinahMoeHum]

12. Environmentalism is not dead, but it DOES need to "shed its skin"

and renew itself.

Yeah, I've read the articles in Grist magazine, too. The best rebuttal I've seen on this issue comes from an founder of the "League of Pissed-Off Voters" www.indyvoter.org

Link:
http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/03/15/brown/


:think:

[IrateCitizen]

13. Actually, I think this letter confirms Werbach's premise totally...

The woman who wrote this letter highlights completely the way in which environmentalists need to come out of the dead-end of "single issue politics" and make their movement just a part of a broader progressive movement. That way, caring for the environment can be linked to providing MORE and BETTER jobs, encouraging technological innovation, stopping the need to go to war for energy, and so on.

This was perhaps my favorite excerpt from Werbach's thesis:

Choose your side: Are you a progressive or a conservative? If you're a conservative, and believe in dismantling our government, selling off our common assets, and endless war, but you still love nature, we wish you well, but we need you to leave this movement. We invite you to attack the conservatives, but don't try to make us ignore the plight of immigrants, stay out of gay rights or stay silent on the war. You are making us weak. If you think you're a conservative and you don't believe in these destructive ideas -- you are not. Join us if you're willing to question everything.

I am in total and complete agreement with Werbach on this. I really believe that we need to get leaner in order to become more effective. Right now, the message is too muddled when "environmentalists" try to remain neutral on issues like immigration, war, etc. In fact, I think that Werbach and Ms. Brown would actually find themselves in considerable agreement if they sat down and discussed things for a couple of hours.

If you haven't yet, I would suggest you take the time to read Adam Werbach's piece, "Is Environmentalism Dead?" It's well worth the read.
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/werbach-reprint/