I went to see the new documentary “An Unreasonable Man“, about Ralph Nader, and found it quite compelling. The movie is so multifaceted, it is difficult for this amateur to write an adequate review! It addresses Nader’s history and motivations; the reality of working on consumer affairs in a two party system when both parties have been purchased by Big Business concerns; the rationale for Nader’s prez runs; the smear campaign against this reputed “egomaniacal spoiler” and how that moniker is patently rediculous.
This movie is likely to spark some interesting conversation. Something Nader said in the movie really resonated with me (and I paraphrase): Dear Progressives, the Dems are taking you for a ride granted and will continue to do so until you demonstrate that you are willing to withold your vote and cash. The truth of this sentiment has become apparent to me as I’ve watched the parade of politicians through the decades campaign as “friend of the gays”, yet shit on us at first opportunity (present governor excepted? time will tell). What do you think, Progressives? Are you and your pet issues being strung along by the mainline pols too (health care, fair employment and wages, decent schools…)? Are you all still on board with the “they’re better than the alternative”, or are you willing to really push back and make the candidates deliver?
Thank you Mr Nader for your incredible contributions, and thanks to the movie makers for a great reminder of what democracy can be.
For helping to elect George W. Bush President and thus proving that you have shifted from being a committed progressive to an ego-driven crank. Useful review here. Larger list here at the film’s official website. (Sorry, Laurel đŸ™‚
As I mention above, the movie addresses this question quite convincingly. There is a Harvard prof (another Gore supporter, as was the movie producer) who has studied the numbers, and concluded that the spoiler accusation is baseless. Unfortunately I didn;t have pen & pad handy during the movie, or I would have written the guy’s name down and linked to his stuff. But here’s something anyone can probably find on the internet that I do remember from the movie: the Gore:Bush vote divide in FL was something like 532 votes. At least 10 third/non party candidates in FL got more votes than that, not just Nader. So why point the finger at Nader? Maybe it should be pointed at write-in open voting and third parties, if you really want to be serious in your criticisms. Maybe the finger should be pointed at the Dems who ran an inept candidate. Nader is just a convenient scapegoat. Using him for convenience allows we voters to ignore the real problem with the way our system is rigged. That’s not at all productive.
<
p>
I really recommend you see the movie before criticizing based on one New Yorker review.
Yes, FL was a lot closer than anyone could reasonably have predicted. But everyone knew it was going to be close, not only in FL but in other key states as well. And yes, there were other 3rd party candidates who pulled more than 532 votes — but there certainly were none who pulled the numbers that Nader pulled, and that everyone knew he was going to pull. He got nearly 100,000 votes in FL; no other 3rd party candidate got close to that amount. He, uniquely among the minor party candidates, was in a position to swing the election to Gore, especially since, unlike the other minor candidates, his supporters would predictably lean Gore rather than Bush. No, they wouldn’t all have voted at all, nor would all the ones who voted have voted for Gore. But I’m afraid I simply don’t believe anyone who says that there wouldn’t have been 600 more who voted for Gore than voted for Bush.
<
p>
Bottom line: if Nader had withdrawn from the race and thrown his support to Gore, BushCo never would have happened. The system was what it was; Gore was who he was; Nader saw it all coming and could have acted, and yet he did nothing, despite numerous warnings as to what could easily happen. Nader is not a scapegoat. He’s just a goat. It’s terribly sad that his otherwise very, very distinguished career is marred by what he did in 2000. But that’s the way it is.
sure, Bushco is here and we’re all sick about that (well, sadly only half of us voters are…). But no one knew then that Bushco would be what it has become.
<
p>
You are of course entitled to your opinion on Nader. But it is worthwhile to see the move for further insight. Btw, I was not a Nader supporter before seeing the movie (although I voted for him in the primary), and I’m not sure I am now. What I am now is totally uninterested in scapegoating someone for unforseen outcomes to a country full of idiot voters. Nader didn’t bring us Bush, Bush voters did – twice.
you didn’t have to be a political genius to see a lot of the badness of BushCo coming a mile away. “Unforeseen outcomes”? Like what — tax cuts for the rich? Arch-conservatives on the Supreme Court? That’s what he ran on. Sure, the Iraq nightmare wasn’t readily foreseeable, since 9/11 hadn’t happened yet, but anyone who knew anything about Dick Cheney could have made some pretty educated guesses there as well.
<
p>
And no, of course Bush wouldn’t have won without a lot of Americans’ voting for him. But without Ralph Nader, the Bush voters wouldn’t have been enough. Nader was not a sufficient condition for Bush’s win, but he was a necessary one — and that fact was utterly foreseeable.
<
p>
It’s not really worth arguing about, I guess — what’s done is done. I just wish he hadn’t’a done it.
of those who focus on Justice Marshall in criticisims of the Goodridge decision. Sure, she voted for equality and wrote the majority opinion, but there were 3 concurring votes that made her opinion the majority one. She was one of four, not the one and only one. People like to focus on one person to skewer when they’re unhappy with an outcome. I guess it’s probably just too damn hard to get pissed at the majority of voters, whoever they are, because they are largely nameless and faceless. The psychology of scapegoating. Fascinating.
there is a single person who could have changed the result in 2000. But it’s not any Bush voter (other than Bush, maybe). Changing one vote wouldn’t have mattered, even in Florida.
<
p>
But Nader could have done it. He’s the only one. He didn’t. He has to live with that, and so do we. Florida 2000 was a unique moment in US history, and Ralph Nader was right at the center of it. Not many people have that kind of distinction in their lives. Sadly, he did not measure up. [TREK GEEK ALERT] It’s just like Dr. McCoy in City on the Edge of Forever. [THIS HAS BEEN A TREK GEEK ALERT. WE NOW RETURN TO REGULAR BLOGGING.]
Nader was not the only one. That is just wishful scapegoat thinking. Pat Buchanan, remember him? He got 17,472 votes in FL. Skewer him, he deserves it! What has he ever done for America? And how about Harry Browne. You probably don’t remember him (I certainly don’t – I’d never heard of him). He got 16,102 votes. Why not say he should have quit while Gore was ahead? WHat coals has Mr Browne been raked over? Then there’s Hagelin, Moorhead, Phillips, McReynolds and Harris, each of whom also got at least 594 votes – enough each to put Gore over the top.
Yeah, I know about them. But again, Nader is unique among that crowd. Why? (1) He got — and clearly was going to get — a lot more votes than the rest of them combined, so his ability to affect the math was much greater. (2) His voters would far more predictably have leaned toward Gore than at least Buchanan’s and Browne’s — don’t have a clue about the rest, but again, Nader’s numbers are the difference. This is obviously anecdotal, but Nader voters I know personally wouldn’t have had any trouble voting for Gore if Nader wasn’t in the race. (3) Nader is a lefty; BushCo wasn’t that hard to predict, at least in some important aspects (notably a lot of the ones that Nader cares about); and Nader, unlike Buchanan et al., should have known better. Nader may be a huge egotist, but he’s not a wacko.
<
p>
That said, I’m happy to skewer Buchanan and the other candidates, if you’ll admit that perhaps Nader might have done better to put the interest of the country first in 2000, like he had done the rest of his career.
Look at this. It contradicts your #2, that Nader voters otherwise would have leaned Gore. It also reminds me of something I forgot totally: Gore lost his own TN all by hisself. Nader didn’t come close to that margin.
I know Gore should have won TN, AR, and WV, but he didn’t. That was his fault (and Donna Brazile’s, by the way). I know the Supreme Court decided the election in a grotesque fashion. I know all that stuff. Like I said, Nader was a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for Bush to win.
<
p>
But I do think he was necessary. I simply don’t believe that, had Nader pulled out and asked his followers to support Gore as the lesser of two evils, it wouldn’t have easily put Gore over the top in FL. The exit polling relied upon by the guy who wrote that link is meaningless — we all know, after all, how well exit polling worked in 2004. And national polling could not possibly have picked up the tiny swing in votes needed to change the result in FL. The only data that would give me pause would be a substantial sample of people who voted for Nader in FL. I’ve never seen such a poll, but would be interested to see one if it exists.
<
p>
So yes, there were lots of reasons Gore lost in 2000. Nader was one of those reasons — and he was a significant one. Without him, we wouldn’t have had the perfect storm needed to hand the presidency to W.
was the Libertarian candidate, and the Libertarian Party traditionally draws more from the Republicans than the Democrats. I voted for Browne here in MA, since this state was not in play, and a vote for Gore was a vote for status quo. I support third parties at every opportunity, as I think both Republican and Democratic Parties first priority is maintenance of the two party power at the expense of individuals and more (credible) voices heard means more empowerment for the individual voter.
<
p>
Harry Browne passed away in either late 2005 or 2006.
<
p>
—>Shane
So Browne and Buchanan pull out => probably more votes for Bush.
and btw, nice way to say each and every vote doesn’t count! each and every vote sure did! they just counted in a direction we wish they hadn’t been cast. I am amazed that you and others prefer to undermine the importance of each person voting and let pro-Bush righty america off the hook just to make scapegoating Nader possible! c’mon David!
You know what I’m saying. Of course every vote counts. But it is a simple mathematical fact that Joe Bush Voter could not have changed the result of the election. I maintain that Nader could have, and that he was unique in that ability (see upthread for more on that).
I just don’t see how he was the only one, given that he wasn’t the only non-dem/repub candidate to get >532 votes. How are you able to discount the votes garnered by the others, especially Buchanan, who is not a political novice by any streatch of the imagination? Inquiring mind wants to know. Seriously.
<
p>
I blame Bushco on people who voted for Bushco.
I’m sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree with you.
<
p>
<
p>
To say that Nader (and many of us here) did not know what Bushco would be is just plain BS.
<
p>
Nader, in all his egotistical glory, knew exactly what the outcome of a Bush election would be. He didn’t care enough about progressives, his values or the country to do something to prevent that from happening.
<
p>
It’s is very sad to see what Nader has become. I don’t need to watch the movie — I’ve watched the entire Nader saga. He has made himself a pariah all on his own. About the only party that still wants anything to do with Nader is red.
In terms of “consumer affairs”, Nader may have been correct about the two party system being more biased towards the seller (corporations). However, he can never support his statement comparing the two parties: “No. There is very little difference” Nader, by his thoughtless words and reckless actions, has hurt the whole world, and I am still very angry about it. Is he still in denial about this?
of course that statement was from 2000, before ANY of us knew how noxious bush was. hind sight is 20/20.
I was in NH knocking on doors on the weekends leading up to 2000 general election. I wasn’t just being a good Democratic party soldier, I saw a big enough difference then to cause me to go way out of my comfort zone. Little did I know how bad it would turn out to be.
I just don’t buy that. Anyone who was paying even a little bit of attention could see that W was a wingnut in “compassionate conservative” clothing. Roberts and Alito, for example, were utterly predictable — if anything, we got off easy with Roberts. (Yes, I know, they were second term, but if he hadn’t won in 2000, he never would have been elected in 2004.)
there would be a Guantanamo? You knew there would be signing statements on every bill? You knew there would be an illegal war on Iraq? you knew that upright US attorneys would be kicked out? You knew scientists would be muzzled? you knew habeas corpus would be suspended? WoW! Can you tell me what lottery numbers to by Thursday?
At least, I can’t say that any of the Bush administration’s actions have been a surprise. Certainly not Iraq. Maybe the hard push for torture is a bit startling, but not much.
<
p>
As to Nader, maybe the answer is that he just wasn’t paying attention, because he couldn’t see past his own giant bloated ego.
<
p>
Anyway, the more interesting question is: who cares. Why try to rehabilitate Nader now? He’s a figure only of historical interest.
Like the poster from Texas below, you all saw all, and knew all before it happened, but said nothing apparently. Just like you knew how the ConCon would NOT vote on marriage but WOULD vote on HC last January?
<
p>
Granted, half the country, including me, knew Bush was an idiot and not the guy to vote for if you wanted humane government. but no one foresaw all the horror I posted above. If they realy did, they were criminally silent. Point me to the warning op ed you wrote, please, or the fliers you handed out saying Bush would comense torturing and dismantling checks and balances. Nothing to show? Then I guess you’re just talking through your hat.
<
p>
But sad to me is that the main point I raised in the diary has been totally neglected by posters: not Nader’s place in the elections, but his point about the major parties using their fringes for window dressing. We all know the Repubs have used the religious right. What people on the other side of the spectrum seem to not be considering is that they (we) perhaps have been similarily used by the Dems in a less than sincere way. Certainly the gay lobby has been. Repeatedly. Is it easier to just blame Nader for everything than look at ourselves and “our” party? I guess so.
Sorry, Laurel, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you are arguing there is no elephant in the room, and defending perhaps the second-most indefensible political act of the last decade, after the use of WMD misinformation to involve us in Iraq.
<
p>
If the aim is to get Nader off the hook, I’m sure there are any number of ways to manipulate the statistics. If the aim is to determine the truth — i.e., how the election comes out with Nader and without Nader — you can run the numbers 100 times and it will come out the same way 100 times: He queered that election as surely as the sun rises in the East.
<
p>
Not only have you insulted at least half of everyone here, but you may have overlooked that more than half of the country had enough doubts about Bush to vote for anyone else but. Maybe you didn’t know, but to claim that nobody (and I think you used capital letters, so there’s no backing out now) knew Bush was at least a fraud, if not a malevolent figure, you disqualify yourself from making any credible argument at all regarding that election in particular.
<
p>
This is really a sore point for me, as I am old enough to have known before the fact — along with quite a few others — how several Republican presidencies would hurt the country, and sadly, in every case we’ve been right. But I don’t have any special insight, and I can’t understand how the American people can be hoodwinked over and over again, when the handwriting is not just on the wall — it’s in skywriting; it’s in flashing neon; it’s tatooed on the forehead of every Republican who ever ran for office. This is to explain how you pushed the wrong button with your post and the comment to which I am replying.
<
p>
I used to be a big fan of Ralph Nader because of his honesty and willingness to call a spade a spade. That there’s no difference between Democrat and Republican was nothing but a self-serving lie by Nader, laid bare by the events of the last six years, and nobody that dishonest — Green, Blue, or Red — deserves to be president. Do you really think a President Gore would have followed exactly the same course? There’s a difference, and the difference is important. The adult thing for Nader supporters to do would be to admit that events have proven them wrong, but instead we have been subjected to seven years of ass-covering and paper-thin, intellectually dishonest rationalizations, with — apparently — no end in sight.
<
p>
I have agreed with a lot of what you’ve said (and I appreciate kind things you’ve said about me) on BMG in the past, and I expect to agree with you again, so I honestly hope you won’t take it too personally. Again, sorry.
so no, I obviously don’t think that all pols are alike. And I didn’t like the look of Bush beforehand either. But to the best of my recollection, I couldn’t foretell the disaster that has been his administration. Evidently Gore didn’t either, or one would think he wouldn’t have given up his fight for recounts so quickly! (If he runs again, he will have to face that history of “gentlemanly” weakness.)
<
p>
No hard feelings, but thank you for being thoughtful about that. I am not a “Nader person”, although i admire a lot of what he has done. I just see no reason for blaming him for 2000.
Thanks for your good sportsmanship. I also felt a lot of disappointment about the way the Gore campaign was handled, so there’s blame to go around; and the Democrats have given me much to grouse about in general, don’t get me wrong.
<
p>
I think both Gore and Kerry conceded much too quickly; since the election isn’t over until either the clear loser concedes or the election is verified, we might have eventually gotten a verified election in either case, and I think the results of both were suspect.
<
p>
I agree that, given the horrors that unfolded, it would have been worth fighting for, and not dropping the matter in the name of not dragging the country through a contentious but final determination of the election result. Compared to four years in Iraq, it would have been a picnic.
<
p>
I also want to reiterate my appreciation for Ralph’s earlier contributions in exposing the influence of the way elections are financed on public policy. Unfortunately, there’s never any movement towards reform when Republicans hold power. Achieving Nader’s original vision is a long road to go down, and the first step is keeping Republicans out of office. That’s a dangerous lesson to ignore, and the reason to revisit this is not to place blame on anyone for 2000, but to make sure it doesn’t happen again, as it almost happened in 2006.
<
p>
Otherwise, I think many of us were ready to forget the whole Nader/2000 thing; then along comes this movie…
Below is a post I submitted after seeing “An Unreasonable Man” in early March. I was glad to see you write about the movie, but I continue to believe the movie was about far more than Nader himself. The Lewis Powell memo highlighted in the film began a long and successful counter attack against consumer interests. As for 2000, it was striking how factual Nader’s defenders were while those attacking him used vitriol rather than fact. Progressives need to focus on the lousy campaigns Gore & Kerry ran rather than using Nader as a scapegoat.
<
p>
<
p>
I have recently seen An Unreasonable Man, the documentary about Ralph Nader. What I came away with was that this is a film about far more than Ralph Nader. The review I read before seeing the film missed the point, saying:
“It’s a biographical epic about a public servant who became more and more rigid as the country changed around him, ?”
The most important part of the film for me was its depiction of Nader’s experience in the
70's through the90’s. At one point he says he was unable to get hearings on important consumer issues even when there was a Democratic majority controlling Congress in the late80's and early90’s. The refusal of Clinton and Gore even to meet with Nader over automobile pollution issues provided another telling scene. The fact that Nader did not change along with our country should not call him in for criticism.In short, this film provides a synopsis of our country’s slide rightward over the last 3 ½ decades. Those of us o0ver 50 know the stories; supposed right-winger Richard Nixon held and supported domestic policy positions (negative income tax, creating the EPA) that would not even be up for discussion in the Democratic caucus today. I want to make two points that are hopefully relevant to this blog:
1. Any members or viewers with contacts in the educational system should push for having this film viewed at local colleges and high schools. Professors and teachers of civics and political science should consider developing curricula around some of the points made by An Unreasonable Man.
2. Locally, because we are so hopeful based on Gov. Patrick’s election, we need to stay true to the statement, made in the film, that it is loyalty to principles, not to individuals, that should be paramount. Of course, this is heresy in both political parties. Personal loyalty is the gear oil that lubricates our legislature and, at least in the past, much of the executive branch. I have faith that Gov. Patrick gets this. As someone who “broke open” Massachusetts’ Democratic politics, he is in a position to lead substantive and procedural changes that open our political system and can counter the cynicism and manipulation that drove Nader to decide a presidential campaign was his only option if his issues were to have any chance of being heard.
I didn’t see your post last month on this. Thanks for reposting it here. As you note, the movie explores some very interesting ideas, such as loyalty to principles over individuals, that make it worthwhile watching even beyond the Nader history. It was hard for me to take it all in in one viewing, so I’m gald you reposted with your take on it.
And now we have to deal with the results. Thanks, Ralph: very impressed … not.
In June 2000, Ralph Nader told Outside Magazine:
Nader wanted Bush to make things worse. He thought that would revitalize the left side of the Democratic Party.
<
p>
The people who have suffered the most under Bush have been the poorest people. The ones who still haven’t had a minimum wage increase. The ones who need public transit because they can’t afford a car. The ones who couldn’t get out of New Orleans before the storm hit. The ones who needed free clinics to get their healthcare. The ones who live in neighborhoods that need funding for extra cops to patrol the streets. The ones who need the National Labor Relations Board to not try to block their union organizing.
<
p>
To advance his ideology, Ralph Nader risked increasing the suffering of the people he said he wanted to help.* He said so.
<
p>
Some of us, like those who read Molly Ivins’ book about Bush or who lived in Texas while he was governor, knew Bush would be very, very bad.
<
p>
*It is fitting that Nader wanted Bush to win. They share a similar capacity for moral choices. After all, Bush wanted to bring freedom to the people of Iraq, who lived under a cruel tyrant. And look what Bush’s actions have done for the people of Iraq.
So maybe we should blame his win on you all – you didn’t warn us of the hell to come…
It’s natural that, since Ralph’s your hero, you’d like to avoid accepting the unheroic nature of his behavior in 2000. Hence your little joke there.
<
p>
But you shouldn’t lie to yourself about your heroes, or anything else.
<
p>
It can lead to bad decisions.
<
p>
Like when Nader tried to throw the election to Bush.
<
p>
That was a bad decision on Ralph’s part.
What else do you know about me that I don’t? I never said he was my hero, although I think his dedication to consumer affairs is laudable and was obviously valuable to the country. What I am saying that it is stupid to scapegoat him.
<
p>
You said you Texans knew all about Bush pre-2000. I’m serious when I say: Nice job getting the word out to the rest of us! Thanks for that!
<
p>
Who cares what Nader said about Bush in 2000. The press sure didn’t at the time, because I had no idea he said that until you pointed it out just now – that’s how well publicized his opinions were(n’t). And that’s how much of a Nader follower I wasn’t.
…Ralph Nader is a self-promoting huckster whose only claim to fame was that he wrote a book Unsafe At Any Speed, about General Motor’s Corvair automobile in the mid 1960s. After which GM, in their infinite lack of wisdom, chose to go on a jihad against him. Stupid is as stupid does, and the management at GM has shown themselves only slightly less stupid than the management at Ford and Daimler(ohne)Chrysler.
<
p>
Nadir (misspelling intentional) hasn’t done anything since his Unsafe book. Except to screw up elections by trying to appeal to the NaderFawningNutCases.
<
p>
I’ll put it to you succinctly. I don’t give a tinker’s damn whether or not Nader is reasonable or a nut. The nuts are the people who vote for him, in elections in which their votes might matter. In a state like Massachusetts, they won’t. In a state like Florida, they will, and they did.
I am tired of progressives fighting over Nader and whether or not he would have one, its about as productive as asking what would have happened had Yamato decided against bombing Pearl Harbor, or if Lee had won Gettysberg, its very interesting and can make for some very entertaining literature and conversation, but its entirely irrelevent and inconsequential to the present moment. David, you cannot say with any degree of certainty that had Nader endorsed Gore, Gore would have won Florida, in a first past the vote system we have no idea where each of those votes would go, and until someone does a study asking each Nader voter in Florida if they would have voted for Gore, and even then most might say yes just because of these past miserable 6 years of Bush, we can’t say for certain.
<
p>
Also just looking at it historically you can’t say “if Nader had just dropped out and endorsed Gore”, at that specific moment in time and history Nader was not in a position to do that, the bulk of his support was from registered Greens who would have voted for any Green candidate, independents, non voters, and even some Republicans who felt he was a reliable anti-Gore vote but didn’t want to vote for Bush (my friends step mom did that in fact) and yes I do conceded that many of his supporters could have gone for Gore, but the whole message of his 2000 campaign was the system was broken and Gore and Bush were equally bad for the country, and it was very compelling at the time and had he dropped out it would have betrayed his message and his supporters attracted to that message and maybe even alienated them from Gore.
<
p>
Additionally had Nader not run to the left of Gore perhaps the progressive and environmental crusader Gore that we see today wouldn’t exist, he’d either be a moderate DLC President or he might still have lost, but he would have lost not realizing that the Democrats need to go left.
<
p>
The real campaign to prove that Nader is egotistical is the 2004 campaign, not only did he still run knowing how evil Bush was, against a much more liberal 2004 platform with a much more liberal candidate who actually met with Nader, he also abandoned the Green party to do so for no good reason to run as “an independent”.
you’re right that we can never know how people would have voted if nader had asked his voters to not vote for him at a given time. exit polsters only asked how nader/buchanan voters would have voted had neither nader/buchanan been in the race to begin with. that was the wrong question for our purposes here.
And, I am not what is laughingly referred to as “progressive.” I am actually quite conservative–in a classical sense. My primary issue is that government be consistent. And not provide welfare to corporations when it doesn’t want to provide welfare to individuals–which is what modern-day self-described conservatives want to do.
<
p>
Regarding Nader, he could have just shut the fuck up in the 2000 election. He either lied or was deluded when he claimed that there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the candidates of the major party. I don’t have the slightest idea what might have happened in the 2000 election if Nader hadn’t used his star power to gain some votes for the Green party. But as far as I can tell is that what eventually happened was that one petulent child Nader helped another petulent child Bush get elected.
<
p>
Is that clear enough for you?
One of the comments your post elicited regarded Nader’s pretty damned good book, “Unsafe at Any Speed.” The Corvair, for another two or three dollars invested, would have been a VERY safe automobile. (The reasons are beyond the scope of this discussion.)
<
p>
Ralph, I think, understood very well the politics of crappy manufacturing. Thus, his attack on Gee-Emm was not only justified, it was spot-on!
<
p>
I wish I could say as much for his environmental issues. His championship of these is problematic in several ways.
<
p>
First, Nader doesn’t truly understand, any more than Junior, the complexities of global warming. The reality is that we are in a cycle of increasing global temperatures that man, in all his arrogance, cannot stop. Our greenhouse gas contribution to that problem is probably something less than most liberals believe it to be.
<
p>
Though I believe it to be significant, I do NOT believe that it will flood Boston OR Seattle by the end of the century. I also believe the reversal of the solar and environmental conditions that naturally cause part of the GW problem will begin to reverse themselves during the comong three decades.
<
p>
This is not to say that man doesn’t need to reverse his particular contribution. The US can help by reducing CO2 emissions from our vehicles, and this is achieveable, though you’d better be ready to pay for the technology! Beyond that, we need to start working with emergent technology in countries such as China and India to force their contributions. Buying green would help IMMENSELY!
<
p>
Frankly, we cannot solve the problem alone. We need help from the guys manufacturing the cheap machine tools, the cheap electronics, the cheap plasma TV’s and the cheap steel.
<
p>
The nation should be urged to BUY green. Unless we do that, we will live with results we don’t really like, and they won’t be impacting our pocketbooks, they’ll be impacting our ENVIRONMENT!
<
p>
OH, and don’t stop swinging, Laurel, You’re doing good!
<
p>
Best,
Chuck