According to the Sierra Club (which endorses Al Gore), Bush supports oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, more logging in national forests, and is sympathetic to polluters who want to weaken standards for clean air and water. Meanwhile, Gore has helped strengthen clean air legislation, increase toxic waste cleanups, fight suburban sprawl, and would like to protect the remaining wildlands in the national forests from any new logging.

There are real differences between the two main presidential candidates in the important area of environmental protection. Ralph Nader, unfortunately, has propagated the "no difference between candidates" attitude, which is highly irresponsible on his part as a member of the Green (as in environmentally "green") party. Nader knows that he has no chance to win the election and that he will more than likely be cutting into Gore's voting tally more than Bush's, yet he will not admit what is obvious: If elected, Gore will work for more protection for our environment while Bush will not. It would be nice to have the luxury of "sending a message" by voting for Nader, but in this hotly contested election, if you really care about the environment, you just can't afford to inadvertently help elect the "evil of two lessers."