Editor,

I strongly disagree with Friedersdorf’s suggested reforms set forth in his recent editorial. It is clear that the environmental movement is not so banal and hollow that it only takes up issues like global warming and international treaties.

The American environmental movement was founded by individuals like Rachel Carson and Lois Gibbs, who fought for cleaner air and water regulations at the grassroots, i.e. local, level. The local level is the most accessible, as it is what we are most familiar with; it is quite false to say that more results can come from working equally hard on global issues, as these issues require more time, energy, and political investment than their local counterparts.

Friedersdorf also unfairly targets (albeit indirectly) the Students for the Field Station (SFS) group. In Claremont, if a student wants to support larger, more "global" issues, s-he can join the Eco-club or EQC. Students in Claremont should be so fortunate to receive funds for a variety of environmental organisations. At the University of Geneva, student organisations will not receive funding if they support any type of civil disobedience. Swiss officials, like CUC CEO Barham Hill, want to maintain control over student activism, well-demonstrated by landing helicopters on the freeway to stop student caravans headed to Davos in January.

SFS, started by Cvitanovich, Molina and myself, was intended for a specific cause: to preserve the BFS. It is not a "fringe" issue. It is not a fair argument to tell Claremont ecologists to come out of the trees and stop playing on the edge because, clearly, the BFS is a global issue and has obtained plenty of "mainstream support." Between the Ballona Wetlands controversy and BFS, we are talking about a lot of threatened acreage in LA County, indeed one of the most polluted, sprawling communities in the United States. If it takes some concrete barrels and late paychecks to prove our point, so be it.

Sincerely,

Charles W. Cange

Geneva, Switzerland