Just look at the environmental records for God's sake!! If the statistics are not enough to persuade a Green, who by definition puts the environment and quality of life on this planet on the top of his or her agenda, then they are just as much a greedy, slefish bastard as Ralph Nader is.

http://changein04.com/bvsk/bvskENV.php

To put it in terms an idiot can understand:

Kerry is an environmentalist, look at his record

Bush is the worst environmental president this country has ever seen, look at his record!

Yea there is a lot of similarities between Bush and Kerry, and many aspects of a Kerry administraton would be similar to the current Bush administration. But one thing is for certain, if Kerry is elected, our national forests will recieve better protection, our air and water will be less threaten, and we have a better chance of joining other nations in an effort to learn more about global warming, and help derive ways to at least slow down the process.

If you are a true Green, and truely care about the environment, you will realize how important it to cast your vote for Kerry and help to remove Bush from office.

Can't remember which show Ed talked about evolution in...Kissimmee?

American politics need to evolve...that is why Kerry is right for right now. Nader is too far of a jump. It is like going from creating fire straight to microwave ovens.

Nader and his lot will have his time. That time is not NOW. Americans are not ready for Nader. We have to evolve.

OK, I'm a registered Green. You call our two-time Presidential candidate a "greedy selfish bastard" and then you appeal to our wisdom and good virtues. Interesting. But I forgive you.

Well, given the important differences between Bush and Kerry on the environment I can appreciate why some Greens will vote for Kerry in states where the vote is close. I'm fortunate enough not to have to make that decision.

Kerry needs to agree that nuclear power must be phased out. I don't predict he will, and I don't predict any significant reduction of fossil fuel use will occur because of a Kerry administration, but obviously Bush and the environment go together like oil and water.

Well Im not a registered Green, but I do consider myself to be closer to a Green than any other political party. I just think that if we see Bush for 4 more years, we are giong to see an asult of the environment like we have never seen before, or could have ever imagined.

Since Greens are so highly motivated to protecting and improving the environment, it just seems natural for them to rally behind someone like Kerry who been shown to be an environmentalist, even if he dosent necessarily share other Green values.

I guess it all just depends on what you value in this election.

Pledge My Grievance, who did you vote for last election? Because Gore was a pretty good environmentalist as well.

Hey Pledge,

Kerry is not on par with the Green Party on the environment and I hope people aren't lulled into thinking that he is. But yeah, he's better than Bush and probably a good idea to vote for Kerry in 'swing states'. In other states, we should challenge him.

Still, I worry that Kerry's improvements over Bush on the environment aren't enough, and if we don't make drastic changes soon, we're fucked.

And if foreign policy is equally as concerning to Greens as the environment is... in that case, I could argue that Kerry is worse than Bush, as he is a more cunning form of imperialist.

Kenny,

I don't want to derail this thread too far off course, but I've noticed you are especially down on nuclear power. Why is that? There are places in the world (France in particular) wher nuclear power is being used with great success, and in my opinion, as long as you don't have a decaying nation like the Soviet Union running the plant, it has a pretty impressive safety record including how dangerous a mistake can be.

So why is this such a primary issue for you?

--PunkDavid (no Lisa, it's pronounced NOOK-yu-ler)

I can't speak for Kenny (maybe he is answering you right as I type heh), but there are some major problems with nuclear. First, nuclear power is one of the most expensive ways to produce electricity, period. It's not as bad in many other countries because their electricity is much higher than in the US, but if you don't want electricity prices here to rise, touting nuclear power isn't such a great idea.

As for more technical answers, it's important to understand that there are two ways to achieve nuclear power: using Uranium 235 and using Uranium 238. Uranium 235 is what everyone uses. However, it's rare and will be depleted soon. For example, there is thought to be 500,000 tons of recoverable uranium in the US (5-6 million globally), and the US currently consume 22,000 tons each year. You do the math, those aren't good numbers. And if you're talking about even more consumption by building more nuclear reactors..

Uranium 238, on the other hand, was the real hope of nuclear power. It is much more plentiful. However, in order to use it for fuel, it needs to be processed into plutonium. Plutonium is probably the most toxic substance on earth, it is horrendous. Just four pounds of it could kill every person on the earth. It's also the material used in atomic bombs. So I'm sure you can see why anyway would be hesitant to use it.

And of course, the issue of waste/security is pretty big.

Frankly, I think there are just way too many problems with nuclear power. Now, if someone can figure out a way to make nuclear fusion work, on the other hand..

I voted for Nader, because I knew Gore didnt have a shot in my state of VA.