Ralph Nader on Energy & Oil
2008 Independent for for President; 2004 Reform nominee; 2000 Green nominee
A: Ralph Nader believes “it is time to break our addiction to fossil fuels. The evidence of global warming is mounting. We threaten the global environment with our continued use of fossil fuels. Not only is this an ecological threat, it is a tremendous economic threat, facing all of humanity. Global warming will bankrupt the re-insurance industry, spread infectious tropical diseases, and increase severe and unpredictable weather.”
A: Ralph Nader supports “a new clean energy policy that no longer subsidizes entrenched oil, nuclear, electric, and coal mining interests--an energy policy that is efficient, sustainable, and environmentally friendly. We need to invest in a diversified energy policy--including renewable energy like wind and other forms of solar power, more efficient automobiles, homes and businesses--that breaks our addiction to oil, coal, and atomic power.”
Achieving a 20% reliance on renewable energy sources by 2020 would save a total of 20.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In 24% of locations where wind was measured, wind speed in the US is fast enough to provide power at [competitive] costs. [But compared to Europe], the US lags far behind. Though the US Department of Energy’s renewable energy program cites “real potential of cutting solar prices by half,” the US continues to progress very slowly on solar development compared to Europe and Japan.
What we’ve known about the potentials of wind, solar efficiency, and other non-fossil fuel energy for thirty years is being applied on a schedule far too slow, given the urgency of global warming and the danger of resource wars.
“Kyoto!” Nader said derisively. “It was watered down so badly, structured to alienate the third world, then Gore went back home and there was no push to make the case“ for the Senate to ratify the treaty. There was unanimous opposition in the Senate.
But Nader said that should not have stopped Gore. ”It’s what do they stand for versus what do they fight for - I discount the rest as linguistic differences.“ He concluded, ”Anyway, my phrase is that there are few major differences.“
A: The way to deal with energy was for Clinton/Gore to establish strong energy efficiency standards, which they did not do, especially for the motor vehicle industry, which is now going down to 24 1/2 mpg, and also for lighting and heating. The energy you don’t waste is the energy you don’t have to drill in a beautiful preserve up there in northern Alaska, which is just a temporary fix anyway for our inebriated energy gouging and pricing system.
|Other candidates on Energy & Oil:||Ralph Nader on other issues:|
George W. Bush (R,2001-2009)
Bill Clinton (D,1993-2001)
George Bush Sr. (R,1989-1993)
Ronald Reagan (R,1981-1989)
Jimmy Carter (D,1977-1981)
Gerald Ford (R,1974-1977)
Richard Nixon (R,1969-1974)
Lyndon Johnson (D,1963-1969)
John F. Kennedy (D,1961-1963)
Dwight Eisenhower (R,1953-1961)
Harry_S_TrumanHarry S Truman(D,1945-1953)