Dear Mr. Nader:
I recently listened to the March 12,
2014 interview that you gave with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!,
and I am very concerned with the way you plan to ween the United
States off fossil fuels. Although I agree that the earth has reached
a crisis point because of human pollution and drastic steps must be
taken to save our planet and the human race, cutting American access
to carbon based and nuclear energy, without transforming American
life to be less dependent on energy, will have devastating
repercussions which will undoubtedly plague this continent for
centuries to come.
Petroleum is not a luxury that can be
sacrificed by sheer will power and the willingness to make sacrifices
for the future. Our food, clothing, and shelter all depend upon vast
quantities of oil and oil based products to produce and transport
into the homes of Americans. Not to mention that an overwhelming
percentage of modern communication depends upon very energy
intensive. I don't have the statistics at hand, but I would not be
surprised if the Internet was the either the largest or second
largest producer of carbon-dioxide.
The vast majority Americans live in
suburban or urban neighborhoods isolated from place of employment and
stores where they shop. Most Americans bridge these vast distances in
their own personal car, because much of the United States lacks basic
public transportation. What public transportation exists in this
country is inconvenient, expensive, dirty, and unsafe.
Furthermore, there is not a single
county in the US that produces enough food to feed its residents. The
food that is produced in agricultural counties, with the exception of
fruits and vegetables, needs to travel hundreds or thousands of miles
to be processed into something that is edible. Not to mention that
clothing, building material, and sundry necessities of life are made
in an international network that circumnavigates the globe.
Zeroing out oil overnight usage would
cause widespread shortages and famine across this country. Markets
cannot solve the problems created by a radical reduction in access to
petroleum alone with destroying huge numbers of lives. Reducing coal
and nuclear energy will also wrack this country by destroying mass
communication, which is the very beating heart of globalization.
Renewable sources of energy are highly subsidized and inefficient
they cannot replace current sources of energy without decades of
research and new technologies. If the US Government attacks current
sources of energy, millions if not tens of millions of people would
be displaced and die.
No one can cut a local economy out of a
national or international economy to which it is completely
interconnected and expect it to function. Like it or not America and
Americans depend upon globalization. To attack the energy industry
without considering the social needs of the United States is
completely outrageous and extremely dangerous. We cannot simply solve
the problem of carbon emissions by reducing carbon emissions
directly.
The United States needs a carefully
planned transition away from the current status quo to an economy and
way of living that is much less energy intensive. Subsidized locally
grown organic food replacing the giant agricultural conglomerates,
building clean efficient and ubiquitous public transportation to
replace the automobile, developing cleaner nuclear energy like
thorium and fusion reactors, restructuring communities to have
housing within walking distance from the basic necessities of life,
and, last but not least, developing more efficient technologies to
gather solar and wind energy, are a few goals that could help make
the United States a greener country.
I do not pretend that these suggestions
are the only things that need to be done to make the United States an
ecologically friendly. I am convinced that a think tank composed of
experts in all aspects of modern life need to catalog essential
reforms to our society and phased plan for their implementation.
However, the serious threat currently
posed by climate change makes gently pushing industry in a desirable
direction impractical. The free will of big business cannot move
quickly enough to avert the collapse of our ecosystem. It is
politically incorrect to say the United States needs a command
economy, but I do not see how this country can make the necessary
transitions without one.
We agree that things cannot continue as
they are, but to leave the lives of 310 Million Americans to the
winds of chance is immoral and irresponsible. To do so cannot produce
the results we want and the the earth needs. The natural reaction of
humans or any other animal in the face of imminent death is to lash
out and try to destroy it enemy. No amount of power can force
hundreds of millions of people to accept starvation. The inevitable
result of energy focused policies rather than an holistic
transformation of the United States will be anarchy, and I can assure
you that an anarchic America will destroy the environment far worse
that this country currently does.
Sincerely,
Gene Ogorodov
