Dear NDD:

I think what is at the very heart of your arguments is an argument about the nature of the corporate capitalist world that our society has evolved into. And I agree with every word you've written about the disparate worlds of rich and poor, and the obscene levels of consumption that the very rich are accustomed to, and the fundamental ways that this is at the root of environmental degradation.

The issue of global warming and a lot of other important environmental and social issues as well are surely and deeply exacerbated by the greed and over-consumption that is taken for granted by the rich and powerful. But I have no power to change any of that. So I've chosen to focus on some issues I DO have enough expertise in to educate as many people as I can.

I'd submit that Al Gore, like all of us, is in one way or another a victim of the givens of the world he was born into. We on the outside of the rich and famous inner circle can look into that world with anger and some clarity about their overconsumption. But they on the inside, with spouses and children and family tradition and, I'll admit it, a certain level of comfort at their position, may still be doing what they can to reduce their consumption. Maybe one day we'll have another effective New Deal Democrat who comes from that inner circle and is willing to work as FDR did to make things more equitable again.

There is no way in hell most people on the inside of that circle will ever listen to me, or probably even to you. But there's at least a little chance that a few of them will listen to someone on the inside with them. Al Gore has always been an environmentalist. He's been ridiculed his entire career for that--dismissed by Bush I as "Ozone Man." But he has done what he could within that circle to use his position to influence other inner circle rich guys, in government as well as entertainment, to get the word out, and to DO something. "Ozone Man" ridicule aside, the hole in the ozone is growing measurably smaller again thanks to Ozone Man and the legislation he helped get passed to get rid of chlorofluorocarbons in aerosol cans. Legislation alone can and does change things that impact the rich and famous AND the rest of us.

In 1971 my husband and I bought a Ford Pinto specifically because it was the car that had the best gasoline mileage. We were poor, but our ONLY consideration in that purchase was to reduce pollution, carbon emissions, and other environmental impacts. We've always made that our primary concern. My last car before the Prius was a Ford Aspire which I had for 10 years, for the same reason. There are a lot of us little people, mostly on the outer circle far from the rich and famous, who are doing what we can to live sustainable lives. But there are a lot of little people on the outside of that circle who are NOT living sustainable lives. Better to get more and more celebrities to influence them, and to influence one another, and to enact laws like STRICT CAFE standards (not the wimpy one signed into law yesterday).

Al Gore is human, and is so entrenched in that inner circle that there is no way he'd even answer an email or letter from me. But he DOES get the word out way more broadly and effectively than I do. Even as I hold a fervent desire to make this country less beholden to and ruled by corporations, and don't see Al Gore as anywhere near looking for, much less finding a solution to that, I'm still very glad he's on the planet.

In the book 101 Ways to Help Birds, one "Way" is to "drive at the slowest speed that is safe, courteous, and convenient." It discusses the importance of saving energy, and also the importance of reducing road killed wildlife. Even if you don't particularly care about dead raccoons and deer, their carcasses subsidize ever-burgeoning numbers of scavengers, and decomposing roadkill is a source of pathogens. Slowing down and driving mindfully can significantly reduce the number of animals killed on highways.

Slowing down saves money, lives, wildlife, and natural resources. It's the right thing to do.

Actually when the government has actually mandated environmental changes, it's had a huge and positive effect. The Cuyahoga River in Ohio used to catch fire with shocking regularity. Since the Clean Water Act was passed and enforced, that problem ended quickly. Lake Erie was declared "dead" in the early 70s--no fish remained whatsoever. Now it's doing much, much better. When Congress set the first CAFE standards on cars, the automakers grumbled that it would be inconceivable and impossible to set the average mileage at 25 mpg. Of course, industry managed to erode much of this almost as fast as the ink dried--small trucks and vans were put in the "light truck" category and allowed much poorer environmental and safety standards. When minivans and SUVs came onto the market, even though they were marketed the same as cars and used as "passenger vehicles," they were allowed to go into the "light truck" category, so we took two steps backward even as we were making a baby step forward.

Many more Americans resented the 55 mpg speed limit than the CAFE standards or other laws regulating emissions into air and water, because that was the law that actually made a difference in people's everyday lives. And it wasn't uniformly enforced. So it was a failure over the long run. But the only way to get drivers to slow down without putting the conscientious individual drivers who do at excessive risk is to lower the speed limit for everyone, and strictly and uniformly enforce it.