How you compare
Ralph Nader shares a 100% similarity with your beliefs on Environment and Energy
I strongly support the idea that human pollution is a significant cause of global warming
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.
I support international treaties to cut greenhouse gas emissions like the Kyoto Protocol
“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.“
New York Times Nov 1, 2000, by Melinda Henneberger,
"Our response to global warming must include the following: Increased use of renewable energy and diminished use of fossil fuels, especially for electric power generation; improved fuel efficiency of all vehicles; improved efficiency of all appliances and industrial equipment; the elimination of all subsidies for fossil fuel and nuclear development and production. We need to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and [achieve] the 7% reductions promised by the US by 2008."
Ralph Nader’s letter to the Sierra Club Jul 24, 2000
I strongly support investment in alternative forms of energy
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.
"We should be energy independent in this country. Solar energy is getting more efficient, more practical, a lot of small businesses going into it, there’s no reason for us to get into foreign involvements because of the abuse of power of global corporations."
Interview on “Larry King Live” Oct 6, 1996
"Who's making about solar conversion as a national mission in our country? Gore is talking about it. They [the democratic presidential candidates] are tiptoeing here and there and they are avoiding some very serious issues.
"The best bang for the buck is energy efficiency. It's renovating, lightbulbs, heating, air-conditioning, renovating buildings. That's the best way, and that's less fuel, less greenhouse gases. The second is solar energy. Solar energy is the most universal solvent, and that's the way to deal with it."
watch now
I strongly oppose investment in drilling for oil domestically
Q: Do you support drilling in Alaska? 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."
Nader-Buchanan debate on ‘Meet the Press’ Oct 1, 2000
"Opposes oil exploration in Arctic refuge"
I strongly support carbon taxes or credits to cut greenhouse gas emissions
From Nader's official campaign website: "Nader/Gonzalez proposes a straightforward carbon tax - set to annual benchmarks to bring, with the expansion of solar energy, US emissions to at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. A phased in initial price of $50 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions would harness $300 billion annually - money that would be put back in the pockets of American taxpayers, and money that would finance a green industrial revolution, providing a boon of 10 million new green collar jobs (in efficiency retrofits, cogeneration, geothermal, solar energy generation, and green grid enhancements) in the first five years. The carbon tax will be most efficiently levied at carbon bottlenecks, the key points where flows of carbon are the most concentrated - trunk pipelines for gas, refineries for oil, railroad heads for coal, LNG terminals, cement, steel, aluminum, and GHG-intensive chemical plants."