Greater Milwaukee Green Party

"Be part of the solution"

Home

What's New

Meetings

Events

Issues

Candidates

Volunteer Opportunities

Links

Contacts

Photo Page

Membership

Reading list

Editorials

Get a copy of the GMGP By-Laws in Microsoft Word format.

The Greater Milwaukee Green Party endorsement process for political candidates is that the Election Committee, (which any Green may participate in, as is the case with all GMGP committees, other than the Coordinating Council, which is elected annually) interviews the candidate, then, if the Election Committee is agreed that the candidate deserves Green endorsement, the Election Committee recommends to the Coordinating Council that the candidate be invited to address the general membership, at an open meeting, where the membership is asked to reach consensus on the endorsement of the candidate.  In non-partisan races, such as city or county government position the candidate needn't be a Green Party member. In partisan races the Green Party, of course, endorses only candidates on the Green Party ticket 

This is the newest revision of the questions that the GMGP Election Committee asks candidates for elected public office seeking Green Party endorsement.  It was agreed, at our last general membership meeting ,not only that these questions be made known to our membership, but also that from now on, the answers that candidates for our endorsement, give, shall be made available, before our final consensus on endorsement is debated.

Not all these questions apply to all positions that the candidates may be seeking, but we feel that by being elected to any public office, the candidate gains a "Bully Pulpit" and positions on all these issues are, therefore, relevant regardless of the candidate's intended office. This list of questions is under constant revision.

We first ask the candidate, what political party affiliations they may have, and how they feel about joining the Greens.

We then ask them; if elected will they:
I. Ecology
 - Oppose new Coal Plants.
 - Promote government energy conservation and increased use of renewable energy.
 - Oppose expressway expansion.
 - Promote mass transit.
 - Oppose urban sprawl.
 - Promote expansion of public owned parks and green-spaces.
 - Oppose sale of Lake Michigan water to counties to our west.
 - Promote fixing the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District.
 - Promote more unrestricted public access to all areas of the lakefront.

II. Grassroots Democracy
 - Oppose downsizing of elected government bodies such as the city council, school boards, or the county board.

III. Labor Rights
 - Promote the rights of workers to unionize and bargain collectively.
 - Promote raising the minimum wage.
 - Promote government agency boycotts of businesses that hire replacement workers during labor disputes.
 - Oppose privatization of public property, public institutions, or government agencies providing social services.
 - Promote job programs that cooperate with organized labor and add to the quality of community life,without causing further damage to our ecological system.
 - Oppose the current Milwaukee school voucher system.

IV. Peace
 - Promote urban development over military spending.
 - Oppose US military aggression.

V. Social Justice
 - Promote public education.
 - Promote women's right to reproductive choice.
 - Promote civil ! rights for all people, including immigrants, regardless of nationality, race, culture, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or age.
 - Promote community control and/or ownership of all public utilities.
 - Promote grassroots community oversight of internal police investigations.
 - Promote replacing "W2" with a jobs program that gives living wage jobs and eliminates corruption.
 - Promote progressive tax policies to replace regressive taxation schemes such as government fees and property taxes.
 - Promote health care that is accessible and affordable for all.

VI. Transparency in Government
 - Promote fiscal transparency in all government agencies by providing public access to proposed budgets down to the departmental level.

Anyone interested in the proposed plan for commuter rail in Southeast Wisconsin can attend the upcoming public hearings on the issue.  Please visit the Transit Now website for more information.  The first hearings are in April and you can find the schedule here.

As the Greater Milwaukee Green Party, we strongly believe that all children should have equal access to good education facilities.  We stand for public funding for common schools, where values of diversity, democracy, and civic responsibility can flourish.  We oppose the use of public funds for children to attend private schools.  We stand against the movement--advanced by the corporate community and their allies within the two traditional political parties--that treats education as a product to be bought and sold.

           Ideology of the market.  In an age when ideas are widely treated as commodities to be marketed and control of information is viewed as essential to economic growth, it is not surprising--indeed, it is inevitable--that our nation’s schools are becoming incubators of profit for business and targets of “reform” efforts that undermine the public purposes of education.  Through the ideological device of “school choice,” those who would have the “free market” dictate education--the locations, curricula, instructional methods, technologies, and student populations of schools--have been persuading Americans to embrace competition as the way to have the best schools.  Pure competition is not concerned with the historical social and political benefits of public education.  Instead, successful competition is based on self-interest and the search for efficiency that leads to bottom-line profit.

The proponents of market ideology in education are primarily corporations, business organizations and associations, philanthropic foundations,  entrepreneurs, and elected officials who agree with them.  The main means of implementing this ideology is through privatization in the form of private school vouchers, charter schools, and for-profit school management companies.  Private schools are run by persons who have not been elected by the public and thus are not accountable to the public, only to their own narrow constituency.

           Commercial encroachment on school culture.  In an academic culture, power should come from the ability to propose and be openly critical of ideas.  But a major consequence of financing public education through private rather than common, public sources--by special interests rather than taxpayers--is a subtle but significant narrowing in the commitment of the school from public to parochial, from what is principled to what is expedient.  Corporate involvement with schools can make good business sense in ways that undermine their purpose, such as by advertising to students, providing product-oriented curricula, and striking partnerships that focus on corporate gifts while ignoring concomitant harm.  In the process, straightforward language of reason and logic becomes confused with the rhetoric of persuasion.  When students are not taught to distinguish between truth and the forms of language that hide it, the understanding and practice of democracy and civil society are weakened.      

           Who gets served.  When schools distribute services according to the logic of the market,  people get only what they can pay for.  If tax money is used to support private schools through vouchers, then schools whose constituents serve the corporate agenda will benefit most.  If corporations are encouraged to choose between funding schools that serve the affluent and the white, versus schools that serve the poor and people of color, the latter will receive far less.  Student with special needs--children who are disabled or at risk of developing anti-social behaviors--are only served where it is profitable or otherwise expedient to do so.  Opportunities to escape from the inequalities of inner city schools disappear. 

           Green education policy.  Public schools and teachers do not deserve to be blamed for the ills of society.  Great and lasting improvements to public schooling cannot be expected without social reconstruction.  In our campaigns and as elected officials, Greens would work to understand and to help the public understand the motives, techniques, and consequences of the proponents of the market movement in American schools.  Policy research in education by economists, which is currently in vogue, must not be allowed to overshadow education research that comes from fields such as human development, sociology, and anthropology.

We believe that corporations should pay their fair share of the cost of education, through taxes.  It should not be so easy for corporations to escape taxation by moving to other municipalities, states, or countries.  Corporations are not democratic institutions nor are they accountable to the public.  For that reason, they should not be allowed to set education policy or to influence the curriculum in our schools.

1.      For public school teachers we support competitive salaries, adequate instructional facilities and resources, and meaningful in-service opportunities to improve their skills as educators.

2.      To provide a sufficient supply of well-trained teachers, we support high quality teacher certification programs.

3.      We support retention of an adequate number of professional support staff, such as guidance counselors and psychologists, whose time is devoted to helping children with non-academic needs, work that is essential to successful schools.

4.      Teachers have the right to organize as professionals and workers for the improvement of education.

1.      We support the efforts of public schools, teachers, and districts to do excellent work in the academic, social, and emotional development of children and youth.

2.      For all publicly funded schools we support a universal standard of high quality instruction, depth and breadth of curriculum, and expectations of student performance that are not differentiated on the basis of race or socioeconomic status.

3.      We recognize that there is strength in diversity.  Because each educator and each student has individual strengths and interests, high standards do not imply that identical content should be taught or learned.

4.      Assessment of teachers, schools, and student achievement must include many more factors than simplistic measurements such as standardized tests.

5.      We support educators’ efforts to understand students’ individual and cultural backgrounds and to use that understanding to effectively present curricula and demonstrate their relevance to students’ lives.

6.      We support the efforts of schools and teachers to become more engaging.  For students to benefit from their academic achievement over the long term, it is essential to provide schoolwork that is engaging, so that students feel motivated to do it.

1.      We support small class sizes that differ with consideration to special needs enrollment.  We support funding for small class sizes.  We support special education funding sufficient to maintain small class sizes in self-contained special education classes.

2.      We support full utilization of Head Start programs.

3.      We support bilingual education.

4.      We support multicultural education programs.

5.      In secondary schools where a significant portion of students enroll in vocational, work-oriented programs, an overarching culture of academic excellence must be maintained.  To keep the option of higher education open to them, students should not be encouraged to take work-oriented courses without an emphasis on liberal arts.

6.      We believe it is inappropriate for federal or state government to mandate or directly influence instructional practice or curriculum content beyond supporting civil rights and the tenets of constitutional democracy.

7.      Media literacy is a set of skills and understandings that enable citizens to make informed judgments about their world by critically analyzing mass media presentations.  We support its incorporation as a goal and as objectives in content areas. 

8.      We oppose tracking, the practice of keeping students, for all or most of the school day, in homogeneous groups that are ostensibly based on academic abilities but are generally more reflective of students’ ethnic and economic backgrounds.  Tracking effectively segregates students, limits their opportunities, and discourages them from engaging in critical thought.

1.      All children must have access to excellent public schools.

2.      Students in Milwaukee must have access to quality public schools in their neighborhoods, as well as throughout the city and greater Milwaukee.

3.      While neighborhood schools can encourage parental involvement and help build community, they can also be vehicles for maintaining social and ethnic separation.  We believe that ethnic and social diversity in students bodies, faculties, and staffs should be promoted and encouraged, including active recruitment of diverse faculties and staffs.

1.      There must be an equitable system of funding among districts.

2.      Funding for special programs (e.g., music, art, foreign language) in specialty schools must not preclude their funding in non-specialty schools.

3.      Funding of specialty schools must be adequate in and of itself, so that there is no temptation to take it from non-specialty schools, pitting one group against the other.

4.      Funding of special education must be adequate in and of itself, so that there is no temptation to take it from regular education, pitting one group against the other.

5.      Funding should be based on ongoing counts, averages or means, rather than on initial counts that can change drastically in the course of a year.

6.      We oppose vouchers for private schools, both secular and religious, as well as for home schooling.

7.      We believe that tax revenue should be allocated to fund schools and school programs in their entirety.  We oppose revenue caps that result in inequities among school districts.

8.      We oppose funding formulas and corporate tax breaks that relieve corporations of any of their responsibility for funding public education, thereby decreasing funds available to public schools. 

9.      We oppose allowing corporations to receive tax relief for supporting private education, directly or indirectly.

1.      We support the provision of services at the district level that cannot be obtained economically by individual schools.

2.      We oppose the presence and influence of commercial interests in all aspects of schools and particularly in curriculum and services to students and staff.

3.      We believe that competition among schools for funding or for students is not natural, does not necessarily improve education, and is not an appropriate basis for determining policy.

1.      We oppose public funding of for-profit education corporations.

2.      We oppose all forms of contracting out to private companies that threaten union organizing, for educational and non-educational services that have been regularly performed by school district employees.

3.      School transportation systems should be operated in the best interests of the children, owned by the district if possible, and unionized to ensure proper training of drivers, compliance with safety standards, and fair wages.

4.      We advocate the independence of universities.  We support regulation of corporate funding of research and development at universities.  We support repeal of the Bayh-Dole Act, originally passed in 1980, which facilitates the transfer of technology developed at universities to the private sector.  That act has resulted in pressure on tax-supported university research and development programs to give increased emphasis to the development of commercially viable products.

Working for the Environment: A Growing Source of Jobs

by Michael Renner (Worldwatch pamphlet # 152, Sept. 2000)

“ In the long run, the real choice is not jobs or the environment. It’s both or neither. What kinds of jobs will be possible in a world of depleted resources, poisoned water and foul air, a world where ozone depletion and greenhouse warming, make it difficult even to survive?” Report of the United Steel Workers of America (1990)

Introduction to the Milwaukee Green Party Study Group on
Working for the Environment:

Why study theory and statistics on jobs and environment? Theoretical study is really meant to address contradictions in our movement strategy, to reaffirm and explore key aspects of Green philosophy, and to ground us both in the Reality in which we organize and in a Vision of a better future that will win over more people than just issue organizing on the Crisis. Greens have the solutions and the better ways of thinking about Design, political/social as well as innovative technological.

After the presidential election of 2000, Greens need to rebuild bridges with labor and with mainstream environmental groups. This pamphlet, summarized in detail below, is a solid perspective for unity and for issue coalition building. Greens don’t need to apologize for Nader’s campaign given who each party put up for President.* But we need to have a strong united front with our labor-environmental allies given George W. Bush’s agenda against labor initiatives and against the environment—especially, drilling the Arctic and expanding non-renewable energy sources (coal, nuclear, natural gas).

It’s imperative that we reach a broader audience than the green-converted. We need to tailor our arguments and solutions for many different audiences—letters to the editor, speaking at public hearings, sound bites to media, speaking to base groups we’re organizing or outreaching. . . We need to develop our own perspective and skills—for example, the pamphlet has some strong arguments against mining, plus urban green space advocates will find value in being able to counter development plans that get cast as jobs vs. nature. Significantly, Milwaukee is a city with a very skilled labor base and a manufacturing infrastructure that could be retooled for a sustainable economy.

RW (3-22-01)

Summary of Working for the Environment: A Growing Source of Jobs

Key Economic and Political Trends

Micro-electronic revolution and Globalization (p. 6). We live in a global economy with a huge Labor Surplus but on a planet of Resource Scarcity and Environmental Degradation (p.7). [See also Worldwatch’s annual State of the World books.]

Unemployment and underemployment are now structural in the U.S. economy and in the economies of many countries in the world.
“Worldwide, at least 150 million people were unemployed at the end of the 1990s. . . And as many as 900 million people worldwide are ‘underemployed’ [this doesn’t count ‘dis-couraged’ workers] . . . many employed workers end up putting in large amounts of over-time—the equivalent of at least 2 million full-time jobs in the European Union.” (p. 12)

Job growth is nowhere near the growth of population.
“60 million young worldwide are looking for work” (p. 60).

Fears of job loss and changing jobs… (p.6) [This acts against the unity of labor and environ-mentalists, creates fear-scenarios about change, and can be exploited for political backlash.] But
“U.S. Bureau Labor statistics from 1987 to 1992 and again from 1995 on show that environment-related reasons for layoffs were of minute significance: only 0.14 percent of all layoffs in 1995-97.” (p. 26)

We are shifting from an Industrial Economy to a Tertiary (service) economy as we once shifted from Agriculture and Mining to the Industrial Economy. (p. 12)

Service sector work is falling to computers. (p. 13-14)
Industrial labor is being de-skilled. (p. 14)

As employment for unskilled labor in manufacturing has declined (20% between 1970 and 1994; p.15) and skilled workers suffered major dislocations, unions have declined: “Less than 14 percent of all private sector employees are unionized (in 1998, as compared to 25% in the 1950s). (p. 17) “…almost 29 percent of all U.S. workers now have jobs that pay at or below the official poverty level (p. 16).”

This only increases Labor’s need for allies: “A substantial part of the labor movement has taken a proactive role in the environmental discussion, based on the understanding that while there may at times be costs—job losses or disruptions—associated with environmental protection, the costs of inaction could be substantially higher.” (p. 61)

The link has been broken between increasing Energy and Material Use and a growing economy (Gross National Product). (p 8)

Environmental destruction is not necessary for continued development and economic growth (p.30). See a Green Plan below.

The most extractive and polluting industries are in sharp decline in terms of employment /jobs. THE MAJOR RESOURCE USERS ARE THE MAJOR POLLUTERS AND NOT THE MAJOR EMPLOYERS. (p. 22-3 & pp. 32-35 & p.71) **

“Only diversification can save all the ‘one horse’ communities [dependent of one big mining company, logging operation, manufacturing firm, etc.]. . . In fact, in many industries jobs are more likely to be at risk where environmental standards are low and where innovation in favor of cleaner technologies is lagging.” (p. 8)

Perpetuating a region’s dependence on [a boom/bust extractive industry] rather that seeking economic diversification, is not a recipe for reliable and just jobs. (p. 35)

We are already in a transition from old, “hard” energy industries to sustainable ones: soft (renewable) energy and soft chemistry. (p. 10 & p. 30)

The informal economy is alive in Africa & Latin America but increasing environmental pressures arise as population grows & as rural people migrate to urban areas. (p. 18-19)

(A Green Plan)

“The Marshall Plan for Ecological Redemption”: Restoration of Natural Areas & Retraining the Workforce (Oregon logging example, p. 40 )

Sustainable Industries and Diversification:
“As a group, renewables (including geothermal, hydro-power, and biomass along with solar and wind energy) have the potential to become a significant source of jobs. The U. S. industry association, SEIA, asserts that more than 350,000 net jobs will be added by 2010—a number equal to the employment provided by the the largest U. S. car manufacturer…Taking job losses in fossil fuel energy sectors into account, a half-million net additional jobs could be created in the renewable energy sector and in supplier industries, and another 350,000 jobs through exports of renewables.” (p. 45)
“…the [Windforce 10] study [October 1999] projected worldwide wind power employment to rise from about 57,000 jobs in 1998 and 67,000 in 1999 to 1.7 million over the next two decades (p. 42).”
“Wind power. . . requires meteorologists and surveyors to select and rate appropriate sites, structural engineers to design the turbines and supervise their assembly, metal workers to supply the rotors, and mechanics and computer operators to monitor the system and keep it in good working order.”
“[E]nvironmental regulations have led to the creation of a sizable industry that employs a conservatively estimated number of at least 11 million people worldwide, many in traditional manufacturing and construction activities. Although the bulk of this employment is still centered on pollution control and waste management, this is beginning to shift. Jobs in pollution prevention, recycling, and alternative sources of energy are growing more rapidly than employment opportunities in pollution control operations.” (p. 27)
The Bureau of International Recycling in Brussels, Belgium, estimates that in more than 50 countries worldwide, the recycling industry now processes more than 600 million tons annually, materials diverted from the waste stream for the purpose of reuse or recycling. This includes ferrous and non-ferrous metals, textiles, plastics, and rubber. With an annual turnover of $160 billion, the industry employs more than 1.5 million people. (p. 53)
“Like any other economic activity, investment in renewable energy sources as well as in energy efficiency, railroads and public transit, less-polluting industrial production equipment and other environment-friendly activities generates a certain number of jobs directly, plus indirect jobs in supplier industries. . . countless studies suggest strongly that less damaging ways of producing, transporting, consuming, and disposing of goods tend to be more labor-intensive than the more damaging ways.” (p. 28 and footnote 44)
“Instead of today’s ‘making-disposing’ system, a ‘making-unmaking-remaking’ system would emerge…such a system would probably be focused lees on long-distance supplies and deliveries and more on interchanges within local and regional economies. Accordingly, there would likely be fewer long-distance truckers and more local delivery and pick-up van drivers, fewer freight pilots and handlers and more people employed in facilities where old products are sorted and returned to original manufacturers or other firms that can make use of components and materials.” (p. 54)

“Just Transition” (p.65): (endorsed by the AFL-CIO and the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers Union)
Appropriate Government Policy Packages:
1) Transition fund to provide income and benefits for displaced workers;
2) Tuition support for vocational and other re-training;
3) Career counseling and placement services to aid in relocation if needed.

“It’s not enough to focus on retraining. . . It’s imperative that governments adopt proactive policies to: (p. 66)
a) promote research and development in environmentally benign industries;
b) encourage an initial market for alternatives like wind power, fuel cells, super-efficient lights, and clean production methods, both through government procurement and incentive programs for businesses and private households;
c) establish a clear timeline for the transition to a sustainable economy.”

Eco-taxes:
“Current policies encourage resource consumption not job creation.”
Phase out subsidies favoring polluting industries.
Raise taxes on resource consumption, pollution, and waste generation.
Deploying these tax revenues to national health insurance or social security would lower payroll taxes and boost job creation. (all p. 6)

Energy subsidies in the U.S., mostly to fossil fuels and nuclear, are $4 to $30 billion annually. (Subsidies to fossil fuel consumers in eastern block countries amount to $80 billion per year in the mid-1990s.) (p. 30)
These current subsidies encourage the under-use of labor and the overuse of fossil fuels. (p.66-7) Shifting “research and development to renewables, energy efficiency, and clean energy production would provide a powerful boost to the shift toward sustainability and help create a large number of jobs in the process.” (p. 66)

Eco-taxes such as landfill fees, taxes on non-renewable energy and emissions charges are incentives to move away from waste and polluting toward environment-friendly alternatives. (p.67)
“The U.S.-based Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers Union (OCAW, recently merged with the United Paperworkers Union) has closely consulted with Greenpeace and called for a tax on chlorine products to finance a transition [to smooth the impact of eliminated dangerous chlorinated chemicals].” (p.65)

Shift the tax burden from labor toward taxing resource use and pollution. Eco-taxes would reduce payroll taxes. (p. 67) ***

“[E]co-tax shifting started to become a reality in the 1990s, as Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Germany linked a variety of such taxes to reductions in income taxes or social security contributions. . . The European Trade Union Congress. . . has supported [such] a tax shift since the early 1990s. . .
Eco-taxes have to be imbedded in a whole range of policy measures including standard setting by public policy, regulations, eco-audits, public awareness campaigns, and other measures.” (p. 69)

Energy and Materials Productivity means (p. 23):
--reducing the amount of energy & materials used to make products;
--increasing the intensity of product use (performance);
--extending product life;
--keeping products in good repair, upgrading them.

Dematerialization: “opportunities to slash energy and materials consumption by 75-90 percent or even more. . . In their 1999 study, Natural Capitalism, they [Paul Hawken and Amory and Hunter Lovins] offer a bounty of specific examples for achieving what they call ‘radical resource productivity’ through such measures as better design, new materials, improved fabrication technologies, use of innovative software programs, and changes in corporate culture. . . For instance the authors argue that just using existing technologies (including advanced polymer composites, better aerodynamic design, and fuel cells) can reduce new-car fuel consumption by as much as 85 percent, and slash iron and steel used in car manufacturing by about 90 percent, aluminum by one third, and rubber by three fifths.” (pp. 24-5) Redesigning whole systems: “…by the mid-1990s, Novo Nordisk of Denmark had captured more than half the world market for industrial enzymes, a success based on the company’s early recognition of the rising demand for biodegradable substitutes for dangerous synthetic chemicals.” (p. 26)

Remanufacturing: “. . . remanufacturing operations worldwide save about 10.7 million barrels of oil each year, or an amount of electricity equal to that generated by five nuclear power plants. They also save a volume of raw materials that would fill 155,000 railroad cars annually. In the United States, remanufacturing is already a $53 billion per year business and employs some 480,000 people directly in 73,000 firms; this is double the number of jobs in the U.S. steel industry or roughly equal to that of the entire U.S. consumer ‘durable’ industry. . . Canon began remanufacturing photocopiers in 1992. Xerox has developed a photocopier of which every part is reusable or recyclable. . . A French producer of automotive drive shafts that began remanufacturing operations in 1976 has been able to reduce energy use by 24 percent and cut total costs by 50 percent for each remanufactured drive shaft compared with newly manufactured ones, even as labor costs rose. (p. 53)

Energy Efficiency: (efficient motors; more efficient burners and gas turbines; super-efficient
lighting; thermal insulation; insulated windows; producing, installing, and maintaining heat exchangers) (p. 45-6)
If investment moved toward energy efficiency, 1.1 million net jobs are possible by 2010 (p. 46), and a possible loss of 130,000 jobs in auto…would be more than offset by 380,000 new jobs, mostly in public transportation (p. 46-7).

Durability, Repairability, and Upgradability of Products:

“Products can be designed and produces in such a way as to permit three characteristics crucial for durability:
1) the ability to maintain, refurbish, repair, and upgrade, so useful life can be continued;
2) ease with which they can be taken apart so parts can be replaced or reconditioned as needed and salvaged for recycling or reuse;
3) potential for remanufacturing of products so that value added—labor, energy and materials embodied when it was first made—are recaptured.” (p. 50)

Quality Retail (p. 55):
--sell intelligent use, not ownership;
--advise customers on quality and upkeep of products;
--counsel them on how to extend product usefulness with least amount of energy
and materials use;
--diagnose whether upgrades or other changes will maximize usefulness of
products.

Pricing: the price of consumer goods must be sufficiently high to justify ongoing maintenance repair or upgrading, and hence make jobs in these occupations viable… a durable product with a higher upfront cost of purchase will, over time, be economically more advantageous to consumers than cheaper, flimsier items that must be replaced frequently (p. 50). [re: energy pricing, see p. 30]

Performance Contracting & Extended Producer Responsibility:
Companies can now lease copiers, air-conditioners, lighting and window systems, carpets, and organic solvents (p. 56-58).

Other key action points (from pamphlet and our discussion):
Support labor’s right to organize; help on improved health and safety regulations, and right to know provisions in contracts; support workplace eco-audits, and participate with labor on environment/jobs issues. (p. 62)

In Milwaukee, go to labor and support their causes—stop overtime, the rally for Latino Pfister-Vogel workers, mass transit, and fair trade.

Support the Living Wage campaign, national health insurance, campaign finance reform, and a ban on forced overtime.

Economic imperatives bring Labor and Greens together—globalization and the Free Trade agreements, structural unemployment, automation, deskilling society and the decline of unions’ influence, and population growth exceeding job growth.
But Greens have challenges to raise to our friends in Labor:
Reduce the workweek to create more jobs and a better quality of life.
Environmental costs are not figured into current economic policy and pricing.
There are limits not only on the planet’s resources but also on the notion of
economic growth as well. What kind of work is the main question.
How to bring renewable energy jobs to Milwaukee? Unions in Madison stopped The Midwest Renewable Energy Fair from putting up their wind machines in 2000 (unless they let unions do it at too high a price) so the first urban renewable energy fair had none. What can we learn from this?
Can we do a float in the Labor Day parade advertising the solar economy and all the jobs that will come with renewables? Can we support the mayor’s plan for a renewable-energy business park in the Menomonee valley? Which factories can be retooled to produce wind towers, photo-voltaic panels, light rails and its trains? Can we do all this with labor’s support, not its opposition?

Labor has skilled organizers, a financial base for its causes and paid leadership positions, political discipline, and (at its best moments) a history of fighting for justice causes.

The environmental imperatives continue to unite Environmentalists and Greens—global climate change, tear in the ozone, diminished resources (oil, minerals, fish, forests, soil), and threats to clean air, water and food.
But Greens have challenges to raise to mainstream environmentalism: Native subsistence rights are not a threat to species; environmental justice is the overarching theme/issue that will unite progressives as well as bring in value-conservative (populist) defenders of place and tradition; and we have to create the alternatives at our local, bioregional level (a challenge for Left Greens too).

Mainstream environmentalists have a history of issue victories (not just advocacy or influence), paid staff and lawyers, and a broader acceptance than Greens among nature advocates and conservation groups.

We all realize only a movement can bring the best ideas to fruition, not think tanks, study groups, legislation, or elections (victories or defeats).



* A 1994 NY Times article illustrated how every time Hillary tried to pull the Clinton White House to progressive positions on health care, welfare, and military spending, Gore pulled Clinton to the right, and won. Fans of Gore’s Earth in the Balance were mightily disappointed with his years as Vice-President.
The top ten reasons Al Gore is not an environmentalist:

1) In late 1994, the World Bank, with the approval of the Clinton administration, gave $317 million to put the Temelin (Czech Republic) nuclear reactor—which has the same design as Chernobyl’s—back on line. According to the New York Times, Al Gore provided crucial support for this potentially disastrous project. Cited in the Lake Superior Greens newsletter, Nov. 1994.

2) Gore broke his promise to back those seeking to stop the nuclear waste dump in Ward Valley, California, and broke a 1992 campaign promise to stop the huge incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio (where mercury and dioxin levels have doubled since 1992).

3) Vice President Gore’s Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles has done little in the last seven years except give away one billion taxpayer dollars to the very profitable Big Three auto companies, in exchange for an agreement that has no teeth and provides nothing to speed up the mass production of cleaner cars (at a time when Honda and Toyota can put out car that get 60-80 miles per gallon).

4) Clinton and Gore failed to stop the timber “salvage rider” in July 1995. The rider prohibited public comment and judicial review by classifying its prescriptions as “emergency” timber sales, including non-disease trees (“green sales”). In one of the worst pieces of public lands legislation, approximately 4 billion board feet in sales were recorded by the end of 1996. In 1999 the administration allowed loopholes in the national forests road-building moratorium that allowed logging, mining and road building on 25 million acres of National Forest Land.

5) The Gore family owns stock in Occidental Petroleum, the oil company threatening the very existence of the U’wa people in Columbia. (Wisconsin Menominee activist Ingrid Washinawatok was working with the U’wa in 1999 when she was killed there by leftist guerilla insurgents.)

6) Clinton-Gore support biotechnology and genetic engineering (including their failure to back Wisconsin’s grassroots leadership on stopping or labeling rBGH ).

7) Gore helped the sugar industry steal water from the Everglades and continue to pollute it, according to David Brower, a founder of Sierra Club and Earth Island Institute (publishers of the environmental justice journal, Race, Poverty and the Environment.)

8) “We've read candidate Gore's press releases about protecting our beaches from offshore drilling, and then watched Vice President Gore say it is none of his business if his own Administration promotes offshore drilling in Florida, California, and Alaska.” “Environmentalists Against Gore” statement, 7-21-2000

9) “We've seen Gore turn his back on the people of Appalachia while mountains and streams are illegally destroyed by strip miners… We've seen him talk about fighting sprawl while he's promoting sleazy real estate deals that would move industrial jobs away from urban Miami onto farmland between two National Parks… And just this July 2000, we watched Al Gore refuse to advocate breaching of four Snake River dams rejecting the recommendations of scientists and federal agencies.”
“Environmentalists Against Gore” statement, 7-21-2000

10) Last, but probably most important, Gore supported GATT and NAFTA which can override any environmental protection law and most environmental protection treaties, if it interferes with free trade


Rick Whaley


As Jefff Peterson pointed out in the northern Wisconsin Forum journal: " Both [Bush and Gore] are heavily invested in oil, both support the death penalty, both support increasing the military budget, both support biotechnology and genetic engineering, both support the WTO and NAFTA, both support the war on drugs, both support sanctions on Iraq, both support the embargo against Cuba (Gore perhaps more than strenuously than Bush), and both support punitive welfare reforms."


** Data published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for 1998 reveal that 48 percent of the 7.3 billion pounds (about 3.3 million metric tons) of toxic pollutants that are tracked by its Toxic Release Inventory are released by mining companies. The utility sector was responsible for another 15%. But at the same time, these two job sectors provide only a limited, and declining, number of jobs—altogether 1.4 million, or a mere 1.3 percent of all current private enterprise jobs in the United States. Manufacturing industries generated another 33 percent of all reported U.S. toxic releases in 1998. Within the manufacturing sector, four industries—primary metals, paper, oil refining, and chemicals—accounted for a prominent share for energy use and toxic waste generation, but provided a much smaller share of manufacturing employment. (p .22-3) Charts and more U.S, extractive-industries employment details on pages 32-35

*** “[T]he Economic Policy Institute (EPI) and the Center for a Sustainable Economy (CSE) published a study in April 2000 that asserted the effects on employment of imposing a $50 per ton carbon tax and cutting payroll taxes by an amount equal to the revenue gained. These tax shifts were to be accompanied by a package of measures to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. Using an input-output model, the EPI-CSE study found that, by 2020, industries employing 91 percent of all U.S. workers would experience lower overall productions costs as a result of such policies, withy the remaining 9 percent—employed in energy-intensive branches—experiencing a rise in production costs. The ‘winner’ industries would gain 260,000 jobs, whereas the ‘loser’ industries, particularly coal mining, would shed some 55,000 jobs. The EPI-CSE study notes that providing a generous transition assistance package to workers losing their jobs would take less than 1 percent of the annual carbon tax revenues.” (p. 68-9)

The Worldwatch Institute responds to the Washington Post's March 28,2001 story: "U.S Aims to Pull Out of Kyoto Pact"

THE WORLD CAN'T WAIT FOR ANOTHER CLIMATE TREATY

The U.S. administration's decision to abandon America's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol has created the most serious international environmental policy crisis in years, says President of the Worldwatch
Institute, Christopher Flavin. Today's development puts at risk a decade of efforts to craft an agreement to protect the world from climate change.

“The world cannot afford to wait for another climate protocol to be drafted," said Flavin. “The Kyoto Protocol isn't perfect—largely because of loopholes insisted on by the previous U.S. administration—but
it's all that's standing between us and a future of more severe storms and rising sea levels. It is time for Europe and Japan to call the U.S. bluff and adopt the Kyoto Protocol, perhaps abandoning some of
the problematic elements insisted on by the United States.”

The U.S. is a key player in the climate problem, accounting for one-quarter of global carbon dioxide emissions and nearly half of the increase in emissions since 1990, according to the Institute's latest figures. However, the best way to bring the U.S. into the climate treaty process at this point is for other countries to proceed with Kyoto, with the U.S. joining later when political circumstances have changed.

Although President Bush has argued that the Kyoto Protocol could damage the economy, not implementing the treaty would actually be more damaging. Outside the U.S., many countries are moving rapidly to pursue a new generation of 21st-century energy technologies such as fuel cells, wind turbines, and solar electric generators. The attempt by the Bush administration to return to reliance on coal, a dirty fuel that is a relic of the 19th century, would be a costly economic mistake.

In the end, those countries that address climate change earliest will dominate the massive new energy technology markets of the new century—and create millions of jobs in the process.

END

For more information, contact: Leanne Mitchell, Public Relations Specialist at (202) 452-1999, ext. 527; email: lmitchell@worldwatch.org.

New Berlin power plant

You may have heard about the proposed peaking gas fired power plant they want to put on the southwest corner of the city next to I43 and directly across from a proposed city park.

Citizen's Power and United Citizen's of New Berlin have been fighting this since September, 2000. The problem is Mayor James Gatzke has the majority of the "good ol' boyz" common council brainwashed. (He has hopes of getting in the Bush administration by the way.) All of the evidence was ignored regarding the environmental impact, disruption of the neighborhood, lack of sustainable planning, and the "big scam" that "we don't want to end up like California". The plant still has to be approved by the Wisconsin PSC and DNR. In addition, Citizen's Power has filed a lawsuit to stop this plant.

This is an SOS - the Citizens of New Berlin are being railroaded by a Common Council that has been hypnotized by promises of 'free' money from a merchant power plant. If we can't stop it, the result will be squandered ground water and an added pollution load to our already fouled air! We reasoned, pleaded, argued, and have even started a lawsuit against the City but we're not sure how to continue and we're asking for your help.

Help is needed for the following:
1. Suggestions on what we should do next and how to get the most bang for our buck? Do you have any expert witnesses that could help us at the PSC hearings?
2. Initiate inquiries about the effects of this project on the environment with the City of New Berlin? Hopefully let them know more than city residents are opposed to this project.
3. Assistance or advice on mailings designed to reach the Citizens of New Berlin and neighboring communities with information on the environmental impacts this plant will have? Midwest Power has already done a city wide mailing touting their plant (we are being out gunned here...)
4. File amicus briefs in support of the environmental problems this project would cause?
5. Suggest organizations who might file additional lawsuits in this matter? (Though the mayor claimed our lawsuit is frivolous, the city has retained big name outside attorneys to defend against it.) Your assistance or feedback will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for any help you can offer.

TOP REASONS (PSC & DNR) SHOULD NOT APPROVE THE POWER PLANT
1)AIR POLLUTION (OZONE, SULFUR DIOXIDE, SULFURIC ACID ETC.)
2)LOSS OF WATER (NO WATER RECHARGE)
3)KA-BOOM KA-BOOM KA-BOOM KA-BOOM KA-BOOM KA-BOOM KA-BOOM WENT THE LP
4)POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION OF WELLS DUE TO DRAW DOWN
5)POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION DUE TO MISHANDILING OF RECOVERED RADIUM
6)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
7)FOG AND ICE PROBLEM FROM VAPOR WHEN THEY START USING IN THE WINTER
8)VIBRATION AND NOISE FROM GENERATORS (These are basically jet engines)
9)TOTAL EYE SORE, TOTALLY NOT AESTHETIC, ???NEXT TO THE "JEWEL" OF A PARK!
10)LOSS OF PROPERTY VALUE
11)LOSS OF NATURAL GAS (COMPETING WITH OUR HEATING AND INDUSTRY)
12)NO LONG TERM CONTRACT 20 YEAR SET PRICE(AS RECOMMENDED BY SENATE ENERGY COMMITTEE FEB 2001)TO PREVENT CALIFORNIA TYPE PRICING DISASTER ELSEWHERE
13)HIGHER ELECTRIC PRICES
14)NO POWER GUARANTEED FOR NEW BERLIN OR WISCONSIN, NO SOLUTION FOR US
15)TOTAL MYSTERY AS TO WHAT SHAPE THE AQUIFER(S) IS AT THAT SITE, (WE CAN FIND OUT AFTER THEY PUT THE PLANT IN!!!!!)

HERE IS SOME INFO ON AIR QUALITY HERE!

>From NDRC http://www.nrdc.org/ National Defense Resource Council
(This is a great site for information!!)

1) Milwaukee Metro area is Ranked 25 out of 239 for Number of Attributable Deaths due to AIR POLLUTION.

2)children inhale more pollutants per pound of body weight. They also spend more time engaged in vigorous activity than adults.

(LIKE PLAYING IN THE PARK NEXT TO THE FREEWAY NEXT TO A GAS FIRED
POWER PLANT RUNNING PRIMARILY ON HOT MUGGY DAYS)

This information was provided by:

Charles Smith
19711 W. Pinecrest Lane
New Berlin, Wi. 53146-1333

(262)548-0546

Contact him if you can help in any way.

Literacy:

Illiteracy is a major factor in the inability to secure employment, to instruct one's children, and to participate fully in the democratic process. Extensive research has also linked low literacy to poor health and early death.

In Wisconsin there are more than 300,000 functionally illiterate adults, with over 160,000 in Milwaukee alone. That's one in five adults in Wisconsin that is functionally illiterate. Over 75% of adult prison inmates are illiterate.

One thing we can do to help is to tutor. In Milwaukee, Literacy Services offers adult literacy programs free of cost (except for books). They operate 6 days a week and use proven adult education techniques.

They are always in need of tutors. Anyone interested in helping can contact Literacy Services at the link below.

If you would like to know what the tutoring experience is like, contact Joseph Knasinski. He tutors at Literacy Services and says it is an extremely rewarding experience.

This is one way that we can make a difference in someone's life.