Ralph Nader's letter to the Sierra Club
Dear Mr. Pope:
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Sierra Club's
which have such an important bearing on the future of this world.
stake in the coming years is no less than the natural commonwealth
sustains all life. Over the past 20 years, we have lost significant
opportunities to protect human health, to create a more prosperous,
less wasteful economy, and to expand the progress we have made
safeguarding the biosphere. In particular, the current Administration,
which offered such great initial promise for the advancement
environmental protection, has largely bowed to the will of entrenched
business interests at the expense of human health, biodiversity
environment. We have lost nearly eight years, time we could ill
waste, given the planet's pressing environmental challenges.
Not only has
this crucial time been lost, but the current Administration has
made matters worse by giving the nod to big business in several
areas: global trade, energy, natural resources, agriculture,
Corporate-managed global trade, fervently promoted by President
and Vice-president Gore, seriously threatens the world environment
because it entails the single-minded pursuit of short-term profit
expense of long-term ecological life support systems. Our national
policy is dismally outdated considering the projected advancements
twenty-five years ago. Antiquated technology continues to threaten
health, natural resource supply and the biosphere, not to mention
long-term prosperity. Forests in the United States and worldwide
threatened as never before, despite obvious practical alternatives
wood fiber. Small scale agriculture is being squeezed out by
and giant, vertically-integrated agribusiness corporations. Despite
seriousness of these problems, given the requisite political
Unfortunately, our politicianskept afloat by empty rhetoric
corporate campaign contributions undermine clear solutions
problems raised in your letter (among many more) because as campaign
has poured in, their integrity has drained away. Historically,
government has protected our environment in the United States
to vigorous citizen action. It is imperative, then, that we encourage
nurture this long-standing American tradition. Yet over the last
decades, our elected representatives have increasingly turned
to the hard work of citizen activists while furthering the agenda
political patronsoil, chemical, mining, timber, biotechnology
industriesat the expense of our air, soil, water and the
We must reverse this trend and reinvigorate our citizen democracy
implement solutions of which we are all aware, rather than pin
on politicians indentured to big business and its allies. To
this end, I
have entered the political arena.
I hope your questions and my responses, which follow, stimulate
and better environmental thinking by candidates for all elected
Q. What binding, concrete emissions reductions would you advocate
U.S. immediately adopt as part of a global leadership commitment
global warming? Would you veto the transportation appropriations
other legislation, that included the rider to make it impossible
consider increasing fuel economy? Would you close the loophole
allows sport utility vehicles to be much less fuel efficient,
much more CO2 emissions than passenger cars?
Our response to global warming must include the following:
of renewable energy and diminished use of fossil fuels, especially
electric power generation; improved fuel efficiency of all vehicles;
improved efficiency of all appliances and industrial equipment;
elimination of all subsidies for fossil fuel and nuclear development
I believe, as a start, we need to ratify the Kyoto Protocol
and make the
seven percent reductions promised by the United States by the
years 2008-2012 a real seven percent. There should, however,
misleading bookkeeping by counting the as yet unmeasurable forest
sequestration or buying phony emissions credits from the former
states or by counting the production of nuclear power plants
Clean Development Mechanism. The U.S. commitment must be real
nations, especially the developing nations, follow our lead.
importantly, the Kyoto Protocol must have provisions to make
agreement is adequate or commensurate with the threat. A seven
reduction is just the beginning and the Protocol must be flexible
to incorporate future scientific discoveries that may very well
that we need to cut our greenhouse gas emissions to far greater
a more rapid pace.
I would veto any legislation which included riders that make
impossible to consider increasing fuel efficiency. I would close
loophole that allows sport utility vehicles to avoid the same
standards as cars. And, taking into account many years of unconscionable
inaction by this industry, I support raising the CAFE standard
least 45 miles per gallon for cars and 35 miles per gallon for
trucks, to be phased in over five years. According to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) we need to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 70 percent immediately just
global warming from getting any worse.
Workers at Honda and Toyota are introducing "super efficient"
production cars this year that get between 60 and 80 miles per
These automakers have proven that private industry can go it
it comes to technological innovation. Partly in light of their
would end Vice President Gore's Partnership for a New Generation
Vehicles (PNGV), which amounts to a giveaway of at least one
taxpayer dollars to the very profitable Big Three automobile
with no strings attached. The agreement has no teeth, provides
speed the mass production of cleaner cars and indeed has achieved
in the past seven years. For years, the U.S. auto industry, and
government, have produced "promising prototype" cars
which have gone
nowhere. I prefer to rely on long-delayed updated CAFE standards,
improved air pollution requirements and competition in the marketplace
stimulate the production of cars with greatly reduced environmental
Q. Would you forcefully advocate reform of the WTO, international
agreements and rules to enhance environmental protection worldwide,
rather than allowing them to continue to harm our air, water,
Among the most fetid examples of political cowardice and collusion
between elected representatives and big business of the past
years are the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement
and the revised General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
federal law. These agreements have little to do with the benefits
trade for citizens of member countries. The agreements were designed,
largely by corporate lobbyists, as a "pull-down" mechanism
facilitate the movement of capital across national boundaries.
one-dimensional monetized logic tramples long-standing efforts
worldsome very successfulto protect the environment
environmental safeguards are very often considered 'non-tariff
to trade' and thus become targets for removal. Even proposed
environmental protections will often suffer under the chill emerging
probable World Trade Organization (WTO) scrutiny. Almost all
Congress failed to read the NAFTA or GATT agreements before voting,
instead relying on biased U.S. Trade Representative and business
summaries. President Clinton cut last minute backroom deals to
votes for passage of NAFTA and followed with GATT, having done
safeguard the environment from attack by the imperative of trade.
preempts all environmental treaties, while NAFTA trumps all but
Five years of WTO operation have made clear what a grave threat
organization is to the world environment. Already, corporate
have used the WTO to undermine or threaten to meddle with US
rules, our Endangered Species Act, the Kyoto global warming treaty,
toxics and recycling law, our long-horned beetle infestation
eco-labels, and US dolphin protection.
Global trade should provide nations with the familiar benefits
securing products and services not easily available within their
In the long run, trade agreements that protect the environment
to be the most prudent for the global economy. Unfortunately,
and the WTO have shown us, the current Administration adheres
near-sighted "trade uber alles" philosophy which harms
the environment in
order to secure massive short-term profits for giant multinational
The WTO is so committed to corporate commerce at the expense
global environment, due process and openness, that it cannot
internally reformed. I advocate initiating the six month withdrawal
procedure to end US membership in the WTO. Promptly re-negotiating
trade treaties so that their architecture is designed to raise
environmental standards is necessary to ensure protection of
water, forests and climate. In addition, I opposed Permanent
Relations (PNTR) for China, the effect of which will be to greatly
strengthen the WTO and to accelerate global environmental degradation.
Q. Would you require a public environmental assessment before
Trade Representative's office challenging the environmental or
health standards adopted by other nations as trade barriers?
Under the current operation of the WTO, I would require that
environmental assessments be made before the US Trade Representative's
office challenges, as trade barriers, the environmental or public
standards adopted by other nations. These environmental assessments,
however, must carry some legal weight, rather than being simple
opinions. The USTR must be compelled to adhere to the Precautionary
Principle, which states that practices and products must be proven
before being approved for trade. This principle applies to standards
other countries which may be stronger than our own.
A 21st CENTURY ECONOMY
Q. What policies would your administration advocate to help
United States to a 21st Century economy that reduces its heavy
on natural resource extraction and combustion?
As we move into the 21st Century, we should seize the opportunity
adopt an energy future that is based on renewable energy and
and end our unhealthy dependence on subsidized fossil fuels.
energy opportunities in solar, wind and biomass are plentiful
benefits for the economy and the environment and human health
are substantial. Continuing our dependence on subsidized fossil
will mean more unnecessary air pollution, more dirty water, more
waste, increased global warming and an increase in respiratory
such as asthma. According to several national studies air pollution
responsible for 64,000 deaths each year. The EPA notes that coal
power plants account for 66 percent of the sulfur oxides that
produced each year. Sulfur oxides are responsible for much of
rain that has polluted lakes and rivers and killed fish and plant
Nitrogen oxides from cars, buses and trucks contribute to the
brew of smog that irritates our lungs. Carbon dioxide from power
and the infernal internal combustion engines, that power our
fueling global warming. The costs of unnecessarily using fossil
outweigh the benefits, given the readily expandable alternatives.
Combining renewable energy sources and remarkably expansive
technologies can help us reduce pollution, spark domestic economic
development and diversify our mix of fuel supplies so we are
dependent on foreign sources of oil and less likely to have to
for oil in environmentally sensitive areas, as Paul Hawkins,
and Hunter Lovins illustrate in their book, Natural Capitalism.
As a country we should achieve the following goals in the
1. Increase energy efficiency and conservation.
Increase the efficiency of energy use in homes, buildings
and industry by
30 percent by 2010.
Increase the CAFE fuel efficiency standards for cars, light
vans. New cars should meet the 45 mpg minimum and light trucks
meet the 35 mpg minimum by 2005. The technology of lead times
advanced greatly over the last twenty years and the auto industry
wasted many years by its opposition lobbying. Jack Doyle's new
Taken for A Ride, documents the foot-dragging by the auto industry
Require all purchases and leases by the federal government
advanced standards for renewable energy sources. State and local
procurement agencies should do likewise. I have worked with several
associates over the last several years to move the federal government
embrace more sound environmental purchasing programs. Our reports:
Stimulation Effect: Proceedings of a National Conference on Uses
Government Procurement Leverage to Benefit Consumers and the
and Forty Ways to Make Government Purchasing Green, and our newsletter
Energy Ideas, have sparked significant action by government purchasing
officials to green the government.
2. Increase the use of renewable energy sources.
Increase the percentage of the nation's energy from renewable
at least 25 percent by the year 2010.
Cap emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and carbon
3. Eliminate subsidies for extraction of oil and gas and coal.
The Green Scissors Report prepared by a coalition of
protection and taxpayer groups proposes the following important
Close the loophole in the "gas guzzler tax" that
trucks (mini-vans and sport utility vehicles) and automobiles
than 6,000 pounds.
Eliminate funding for DOE's hapless Coal Research and Development
program, saving $125.4 million a year, and approximately $627
over five years.
We must also reform extraction policies in this new century.
A first step
would be to reform the 1872 Mining Act which amounts to a giveaway
billions of dollars worth of taxpayer-owned minerals per year.
require a fair market return to taxpayers for extraction of
publicly-owned minerals. For example, a royalty requirement of
could raise roughly $1 billion over five years. We should eliminate
mineral patenting, the giveaway of public lands. This would save
$10 billion in potential new patents waiting to be filed. Finally,
should require companies to post adequate reclamation bonds and
a national program to clean up abandoned mines.
Additionally, I would strongly promote the exploration of
the traditional sectors of oil, gas, timber and mining. Henry
1934, made the following remarkable statement:
I foresee the time when industry shall no longer denude the
require generations to mature, nor use up the mines which were
the making, but shall draw its materials largely from the annual
of the fields.
Industrial hemp illustrates how applicable Henry Ford's statement
today. Oil derived from the plant can be used for paints, sealants
plastics and a myriad of other products. Industrial hemp can
be used to
make high quality paper and construction materials, sparing trees.
fibers can be used in textiles as well. Along with a host of
plants, such as kenaf, industrial hemp has the potential to dramatically
reduce our dependence on petroleum-based products. Yet it is
grow industrial hemp in the United States due to misguided laws
equate it with a drug, all scientific evidence to the contrary.
other western nations grow industrial hemp, including Canada,
the UK and export tons to the United States. I have already participated
in a formal petition that challenges the DEA to take industrial
of the proscribed list. The Resource Conservation Alliance monograph,
Issues in Resource Conservation, powerfully presents the argument
allowing US farmers to grow industrial hemp.
One powerful way to promote these alternatives is through
procurement. I would reshape the buying habits of the federal
to promote environmentally beneficial products and alternative
Q. Specifically, how would you accelerate the process by which
write off the capital that they have invested in old technologies
move as rapidly as is technically feasible into the new, more
environmentally sustainable production?
I would provide consumers with various tax incentives when
products that are certified beyond the normal technologies in
renewability and efficiency. I do not, however, support allowing
businesses to write off the capital that they have invested in
technologies. They will simply pocket the cash and employ time-tested
tactics in delaying their conversion to environmentally sustainable
production. The Interface Corporation, which is a leading commercial
carpet and tile maker, is converting toward a nearly zero effluent
manufacturing process because it made both economic and environmental
sense for them to do so. This company did not require that the
government hold their hand to spur the radical changes they have
Q. Would you deny proposals to license or permit commercial
the Homestead site as inappropriate in this environmentally sensitive
The Everglades and the Biscayne Bay, two of the most treasured
parks in our country, are coming under increasing pressure from
developers. Among the greatest threats to the parks are the increased
commercialization, urban development and growth from Miami. The
preservation of these parks is dependent on the vitality and
integrity of both the area's hydrologic system and the bay ecosystem.
Plans to turn the former Homestead Air Force Base into a modern
with up to 650 flights a day would irrevocably set back efforts
improve and help preserve the integrity of the multifaceted south
ecosystem. The proposed airport would have an adverse impact
on the parks
by causing noise and groundwater pollution, hydraulic obstruction,
wildlife destruction and the threat of turning the last track
in South Florida into an industrial wasteland, which will directly
threaten the sustainability of our cherished ecosystem in Southern
Florida. Certain interest groups claim that there is a high demand
such a facility to be built and stress that jobs should take
over environmental factors. The conversion of this airport is,
unnecessary when one takes into account the existence of Miami
its north. Miami airport is trying to become the "king of
with Latin America and has been expanding at a record rate, creating
apparent demand for a commercial airport at Homestead. However,
transferring some of this demand to a Dallas facility would prove
beneficial to interstate commerce since Dallas is better situated
cross country truck traffic.
There are no airports situated on the border of national parks
America; the Everglades is the last place to consider changing
Proposals to license or permit the development of commercial
facilities at the former Homestead Air Force Base should be denied.
PROTECTION OF OUR WILD FORESTS
Q. Do you support protecting all 60 million acres of our remaining
unspoiled wild forests, including the Tongass? Would you veto
that include provisions to undo any aspect of this wild forest
policy? Do you support the elimination of commercial logging
Only four percent of old growth forests remain standing in
States. Since seventy-five percent of those old growth forests
our National Forests, the President has a particularly important
responsibility to be a good forest steward. Despite an impressive
of rhetoric on forest protection, when it comes to forests, President
Clinton and Vice-president Gore will be remembered for failing
the so-called "salvage rider" in July 1995. This legislation
period of logging sales unprecedented in our national forests
years. The rider prohibited public comment and judicial review
classifying its prescriptions as "emergency" timber
sales, even though
non-diseased treesso-called "green sales"
were included along with
diseased trees. Although the rider expired at the close of 1996,
expiration date only marked the end of approximately 4 billion
in sales, not the actual harvest. The legacy of one of the worst
of public lands legislation ever will live on for generations,
resulted not only in the removal of trees, but also the destruction
many associated organisms.
About six months ago, the Administration declared a moratorium
building in the national forests as part of a plan to generate
a plan to
protect our wild forests. This moratorium included loopholes
according to USPIRG, allowed logging, mining and road building
25 million acres of National Forest Land. Nevertheless, the original
proposed plan to put areas greater than five thousand acres off
logging and road building, was a good start. It is important
to put the
plan in perspective, however: the proposed policy ignores over
million acres of publicly-owned lands that are critically in
Recently, the US Forest Service released its draft plan to
large roadless areas. The plan does not propose to ban logging,
does prohibit road building. This would leave forests open to
by other means, including cables and helicopters. Nor does the
include immediate protection of the Tongass National Forest in
national treasure already peppered with clearcuts.
I advocate the immediate cessation of commercial logging on
lands and the protection from road-building of all 60 million
large forest tracts remaining in the National Forest system.
Forests produce less than five percent of total volume of timber
in the United States. It is especially important that the Tongass
National Forest be protected immediately as it is the largest
forest remaining in the United States as well as one of the last
temperate rain forests in the world. I would veto all bills that
include provisions to dismantle any aspect of this National Forest
protection policy. Furthermore, I consider it crucial to pursue
and legislative support for such a plan to endure.
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS
Q. Would you insist on more comprehensive, independent testing
foods before they are put on the market in the US and other nations?
Genetic engineering of food has far outrun the science that
must be its
first governing discipline. Many unknowns attend the insertion
across species, from ecological risks to food allergies. These
beg for investigation. About 90 percent of the public wants labeling
genetically-engineered foods. I advocate mandatory labeling of
foods as well as comprehensive safety testing to be carried out
FDA and USDA. The book Genetically Modified Food: Changing the
Nature by Martin Teitel and Kimberly Wilson, to which I contributed
forward, is the primer that all government officials should read
understand the threat posed by the GMO industry. The Clinton-Gore
Administration has been extremely cozy with the GMO industry;
assurances were given by industry on a voluntary basis until
The regulatory budget for environmental and human health safety
assessment has been tiny in comparison to research and other
budgeted to aid industry aims. Recently, the Administration supported
only the voluntary labeling of GMO foods. Under the new plan,
will require companies to disclose the planned release of GMO
into the food supply merely 120 days before their introduction.
testing will be required. This decision represents a staggering
by the Administration to recognize the precautionary principle
protect human heath and the environment.
CLEAN WATER AND LARGE ANIMAL FEEDLOTS
Q. Would you require the elimination of waste lagoons at CAFOs
Animal Feeding Operations), requiring the permitting of such
and establish a moratorium of the creation of new CAFO's?
A recent survey indicated that the American public views confined
animal-feeding operations unfavorably. In one poll conducted
Perry and Associates, 80 percent of the 1,000 registered voters
questioned favored the creation of uniform, national standards
air and water pollution from CAFOs. This exemplifies the unease
which Americans regard industrial corporate farming that is both
a race-to-the bottom atmosphere by shoving small farmers to the
is also scarring counties across America by causing widespread
contamination. It is estimated that CAFOs annually dump two trillion
pounds of waste into our ecosystem. The EPA reported that chicken,
and cattle waste has contaminated the ground water in 17 states
polluted 35,000 miles of our nation's rivers. Large-scale fish
illnesses in humans around the Chesapeake Bay and the coastal
North Carolina have been attributed to contaminated runoff from
It is important that government expand legal remedies available
safeguard society so that existing CAFO operators know that they
criminally prosecuted for dumping animal waste in our ecosystem
damaging our nation's health. State causes of action by injured
should be expanded under the nuisance doctrine. Factory farms
required to obtain permits and be monitored to ensure that they
strict standards for waste management. I support a total ban
earthen waste lagoons. CAFOs must be required to use lined waste
facilities and to demonstrate that they have adequate waste disposal
plans in order to remove animal waste in a timely manner. Only
polluters are unable to evade responsibility for their destructive
actions, will they begin to make healthy improvements in their
I would establish a moratorium on the creation of new CAFOs,
beyond a certain size. For example, on hog farms, I would establish
upper limit of animals per farm for all new CAFOs. There are
to do this, including the development of antibiotic resistance
facilities, the spread of disease and the need to save America's
farms, in addition to the dangers of water pollution.
Q. Would you oppose any intervention by the Justice Department
administration on behalf of the coal mining companies to obtain
from the requirement that they comply with the Clean Water Act?
oppose any legislation, either free-standing or as a rider, which
grant them such relief? Will you urge the President to veto any
includes this anti-clean water rider? As President, would you
and other anti-environmental riders?
Another major threat to our nation's water supply are some
(including Justice Department officials) attempts to overturn
federal court decision blocking the coal industry practice of
mountain tops to mine for coal, thus greatly polluting mountain
I would adamantly oppose any intervention by the Justice Department
behalf of coal mining interests in their efforts to overturn
decision and would oppose any legislation granting them such
will urge President Clinton to veto any bill that includes the
water rider sought by the coal industry.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has proposed
measures to end the misuse of environmental riders. The first
proposal is to establish a "Senate Rule requiring funding
limited to budget matters." The second proposal is to require
House-Senate negotiations be limited to matters directly addressing
measures approved by the full House or Senate." NRDC notes
safeguards were long-held Senate traditions that were eliminated
the 104th Congress. Third, NRDC urges that Congress enact the
the Environment Act, (H.R. 1404) which requires a separate, open
debates on the House and Senate floors where budget matters,
unrelated bills, include provisions" that adversely affect
environment. I strongly support these proposals. Unfortunately,
Clinton has implicitly endorsed the use of riders by letting
go unchallenged. As President, I would veto all anti-environmental
Q. How would you achieve air quality health standards for
the 100 million
Americans living in metropolitan areas that violate these standards?
"The pervasive environmental violence of air pollutants
health, safety, and property for many decades.... Air pollution
fallout on soil and water) is a form of domestic chemical and
warfare. The efflux from oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen, particulates, and many more contaminants amounts to
consumption of violence by most Americans. There is no escape
violent ingestions, for breathing is required."Ralph Nader's
on Air Pollution, Vanishing Air by John Esposito, Grossman, 1970.
There have been some improvements in air quality since I wrote
words in 1970 for the introduction to this important early work
pollution. Unfortunately, the will of our elected officials to
pollution and the indifference of corporate polluters to the
cumulative violence they inflict on our people through air pollution
persists. Protecting the 1997 standards should be the policy
the ceiling. We need to move well beyond the 1997 standards to
provide children and adults with the air quality their lungs
Improving air quality health standards requires several elements:
Administration must crack down on polluters, strengthen emission
standards, and promote increased use of renewable energy sources.
also important to improve the energy efficiency of everything
appliances to heating and air conditioning to automobiles.
Q. What additional, binding pollution reduction requirements
Congress should require each power provider to produce a minimum
clean, renewable energy and appropriate adequate funds for research,
development and deployment of renewable energy.
We must all work to help Congress eliminate the countless
fossil fuels. And, we must push the major auto makers to build
are truly efficient and safe.
I would direct the EPA to begin its mobile-source air toxics
and promulgate tough new standards for substances such as benzene,
1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde and acetalaldehyde. Our exposure
substances from both on- and non-road mobile sources must be
Congress and the next Administration should develop standards
non-road vehicles used in construction and agriculture to ensure
emissions from these vehicles are properly regulated.
Q. How would you reduce pollution from aging power plants
that are grand
fathered from emission reductions in the federal Clean Air Act?
Congress should require older power plants to meet the same
old plants as those it has set for newer power plants. Operators
older plants have been grand-fathered for too many years. Strict
standards are especially needed for carbon dioxide and mercury.
Congress should prohibit any bailouts of older fossil fuel plants.
Q. How would you protect the 1997 standards?
We need to launch a major grassroots campaign to tell Congress
polluters that the 1997 standards were necessary to keep up with
scientific knowledge and that standards prior to 1997 were inadequate.
Just recently, the Supreme Court agreed to review a ruling from
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that held that
national air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter
unconstitutional. The Supreme Court should overturn this decision
allow the EPA's actions to stand.
In conclusion, it is useful to observe that despite the proven
of the environmental statutes of the Seventies and the overwhelming
consistent public support for these and other popular laws, the
Democratic Party leadership could not keep the Congress from
over by the right-wing of the Republican Party in 1994-1998.
orders designed as timely press releases, are a hollow substitute
transforming leadership the American people deserve in both the
long-run to stem or prevent ecological violence to the Earth,
and animals and marine and plant life. Instead the public is
to emerging international systems of autocratic governance that
subordinate environmental imperatives to commercial trade imperatives
i.e. WTO and NAFTA championed by the current Administration's
Thank you for your consideration.
P.O. Box 18002
Washington, DC 20036
A sampling of the Books and Reports on Environment I have sponsored,
edited or written:
Barney, Daniel R. The Last Stand: The Report on the National
Grossman Publishers, New York.
Berkman, Richard L & W. Kip Viscusi. Damming the West:
The Report on the
Bureau of Reclamation. Grossman Publishers, New York.
Benstock, Marcy & David Zwick. Water Wasteland: The Report
Pollution. Grossman Publishers, New York.
Esposito, John C. Vanishing Air The Report on Air Pollution.
Publishers, New York.
Fallows, James M. The Water Lords: The Report on Industry
Environmental Crisis in Savannah, Georgia. Grossman Publishers,
Fellmeth, Robert C. Politics of Land: The Report on Land Use
California. Grossman Publishers, New York.
Mayer, Carl J. and George A. Riley. Public Domain-Private
History of Public Mineral Policy in America. Sierra Club Books,
Nader, Ralph and John Abbotts. The Menance of Atomic Energy.
W.W Norton &
Company, New York.
Nader, Ralph & Ronald Brownstein & John Richard. Who's
Corporate Polluters and their Victims in the Chemical Age. Sierra
Books, San Francisco.
Osborn, William G. The Paper Plantation. Grossman Publishers,
Zwick, David, Water Wasteland; Ralph Nader's Study Group Report
Hanrahan, John & Gruenstein, Peter Lost Frontier: The
Alaska, WW Norton & Co.
Other Books and Reports:
Citizens Guide to Nuclear Power
A Citizens Handbook on Solar Energy
Myths and Realities: Nuclear Power, Nuclear Bombs
Nuclear Power Plants: The More They Build The More You Pay
Energy Directions: Toward a sustainable Future
Troubled Waters On Tap
The Stimulation Effect: Proceedings of a National Conference
on Uses of
Government Procurement Leverage to Benefit Consumers and the
Forty Ways to Make Government Purchasing Green
Taking on Toxics: Ridding Your Community of Toxic Threats
Issues in Resource Conservation
Contributions to Ralph Nader for President are not tax deductible
federal income tax purposes.
Paid for by Nader 2000 Primary Committee, Inc., Harvey Jester,
P.O. Box 18002, Washington, DC 20036
contact us: firstname.lastname@example.org fax: 202-265-0183