Open Letter to the USA: Please Don't Drown Me

Which is why I'm writing this letter, hoping to appeal above the heads of your elected leaders, to the people of the USA. You see, the point about global warming is not that summer might be a little bit hotter, nor winter a bit milder -- I'd be quite happy about that. It's that the polar ice-caps are going to melt, which will raise the sea level, which means that places which are currently not that far above sea level will be flooded.

I'm writing this as an inhabitant of London, capital city of the United Kingdom. Most of my city is less than twenty feet above sea level. Particularly, my house is, at high tide, less than eight feet above the level of the Thames. If the river rises eight feet, my house will be flooded. If the river rises ten feet, I'll have to find a new house. If the river suddenly rises sixteen feet, it's really quite likely that I'll be drowned in my sleep. I don't want that to happen.

Which is why I'm writing this letter. I just want to make a few things clear. I don't have any superiority complex about the USA; despite what you read, most of we Brits don't. We had our Empire, our time in the sun, now you're having yours, and we're big enough to admit you deserve it. I have no ancestors among the inbred Lords and colonial generals who taxed you without representation in the 18th century, and I think that your Revolution was one of the greatest single triumphs of the human spirit. I agree that you and your troops saved the whole world, twice, in two World Wars which had no territorial implications for you, but in which you got involved out of a pure sense of right and wrong. You guys would be surprised if you really knew how high a regard we hold you in, over here in Europe. Even the French have named one of the biggest streets in Paris after Franklin Roosevelt. This is the American century (arguably, the Second American Century), and I personally, am only too happy to admit it.

I just don't want you to fucking drown me.

But let me continue, because I know you guys often get wound up at the suggestion that some damn Brit is trying to tell you what to do. I'm not trying to do that, honestly I'm not. I know that your economy is important to you; it's important to the whole damn world. Everyone needs the American consumer to keep consuming. A problem for the USA is a problem for all of us. I'd just like to mention at this point, that, despite what I'm going to ask in the second half of this letter, that I'm no more a Socialist, or a "liberal" than you are. I voted for Margaret Thatcher, three times. And between you and me, I don't like the French any more than you do. I value the special relationship between our two countries, divided by a common language. I watch all your movies, and I think they're pretty good.

It's just that you guys are trying to fucking kill me, and I want you to stop.

This is what it all comes down to. There are four hundred million of you in America -- eight times as many of you as there are of us here in the UK. Each of you produces five times as much carbon dioxide as each of us. It's your huge great honking '98 Oldsmobiles, your Cadillacs, your air-conditioning units, your huge great sky-high neon lights. All of the miraculous things that made America great. Rock 'n' roll, apple pie, Peggy Sue and all that jazz. You make the difference. It's not about us; it's about you.

You're killing us. Your cars, your music, your cities -- these are great, wonderful things. It's an amazing economy, a truly Great Society that you've created in your young continent. But the exhaust fumes of all those Caddys, the smoke from all those power station chimneys ... they're warming up the planet. They're melting the icecaps. And these things are -- no, let's be blunt, *you* are -- gradually, slowly, trying to fucking drown me.

Please stop.

I don't want to run you down. I don't want to pick a fight with Uncle Sam. Sure as you like, I don't want to interfere with your human rights.

I just don't want to drown in my fucking bed, because of your 80-gallon freezer.

This is all I'm asking, of you, the American people. I know that your leaders are never going to help, because as far as I can tell, they were bought and paid for by the oil lobby a long time ago (yes, Clinton too, Republicans and Democrats -- do you know, from a thousand miles away, it's awfully hard to tell the difference). But I'm hoping that, among the ordinary American person, there's something left of the spirit that bailed out the rest of the world in 1914 and 1939. Yep, we're asking for help again.

You can drive a smaller car. Try a Volkswagen. A Fiat 500. If you want to buy American, you really ought to know that Ford and GM both make small family saloons for the European market -- demand that they sell them domestically. Make do with a 60-gallon refrigerator. Turn the air-conditioning down a notch or two -- don't you know that in the cold and rainy British climate, we pay good money to have a temperature of 75 degrees inside our houses? Ask your local congressman why you don't have a few nuclear power plants. Ask your local environmental campaigners why they're so anti-nuke when the real issue in the world is global warming -- or, ask them how much money *they've* been taking from the coal, oil and gas lobbies.

I'm not asking for the world. I'm not asking America to stop being America.

I'm just asking you guys not to fucking drown me.

	battling global warming is quite feasible (none / 0) (#4)
	by Peter Johnson on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 09:27:40 AM PST

	Just for the record, nuclear power is not necessary to stop global warming. Not at all. Basically we have a reasonably fixed amount of carbon in the world. We've got carbon in the ground, carbon on the ground and carbon in the air. The problem is that we're taking carbon in the ground and turning it into carbon in the air. Not good. Also, we can't take carbon from the air and put it in the ground. No feasible method of doing that. What we can do is take carbon from the air and turn it into carbon on the ground. This is done through a process called photosynthesis. Also, we can take carbon on the ground and turn it into carbon in the ground. This is done through a process called burial. See what I'm getting at? A concerted efort to grow large numbers of fast growing trees, say lombardy poplars and then bury them in the earth would reduce the ammount of carbon in the air. It'd take some time, but it's clearly feasible. For every ounce of oil being sucked out of the earth, an ounce of cellulose should be dumped in a landfill. The problem is finding a place to put all these dead trees. I suggest the grand canyon. Simply fill it with felled trees, cap it with concrete and presto, less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Sure some people might bitch about losing a precious tourist attraction, but c'mon people, the earth is in the ballance. --Shoeboy --Peter Are you adequate?

	don't even need trees (none / 0) (#7)
	by cp on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 03:22:11 PM PST

	Algae. There's lots more ocean in the world than there is arable land. Algal photosynthesis already accounts for something like 30% of the oxygen getting put back into the air each day.

	How about (none / 0) (#21)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 10:28:14 AM PST

	Every time you purchase something that burns gas or uses electricity, make a small donation to a green organization that will plant a number of trees for you. That way, the environmental impact of the item will be offset by the trees' ability to absorb CO2.

	Define "small" (none / 0) (#33)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 08:49:27 PM PST

	Every time I buy something that burns gas, that something is probably a car, that costs several thousand dollars, plus gas for the next several years. How about making that donation every time you buy gas, or pay your electricity bill? How about making that donation part of the bill?

	Impact already calculated (none / 0) (#34)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 06:42:26 AM PST

	When purchasing the car, you can easily find out how many grams per mile it generates. Assume an average life of 10 years for the car. You can also approximate how much CO2 a tree will absorb in those 10 years and plant a number of them. The cost is small, so do it when you purchase the car. I've seen prices around $50-$100.

	Don't think that (none / 0) (#9)
	by nobbystyles on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 09:41:28 AM PST

	A heartfelt appeal save Ukians from drowning will have much effect on the US. Hulking great SUV versus London drowning, I'll know what will win. Sigh and I used to respect the US so much. It used to stand for all the good values in western civilisation. But then again they have been so unselfish in helping save Europe from the Kaiser, the Nazis and Commies the past century, that one can forgive them for turning isolationist.

	isolationism (1.00 / 1) (#15)
	by motherfuckin spork on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 10:02:54 AM PST

	who is the isolationist, though? is it the people of the US? or is it the media and the politacal machines? ask yourself those questions before passing judgement. I am not who you think I am.

	I'll agree with you... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
	by Art Tatum on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 09:52:24 AM PST

	If you can prove two points: Prove that global warming is the result of human activity and not a natural climate change. Prove that the Kyoto Accord will not have an effect on national sovereignty issues (property rights, for example).

	Proof is not required (5.00 / 1) (#13)
	by bc on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 09:58:16 AM PST

	Curious world you live in. Suppose you were in a situation where there was a 20% chance that pursuing an action monetarily profitable to you resulted in someones death. Are you saying you would pursue it anyway? Without 100% proof it would be ok for you? How selfish. BTW, National Soveriegnties being eroded is really quite good, if we make sure the replacements are democratic. Why be a nationalist? ♥, bc.

	I'll agree with you when... (3.00 / 2) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 09:58:24 AM PST

	1. You can prove that global warming would be a good thing. 2. When your property rights are more important than my life.

	I...I think I need a drink (4.00 / 1) (#12)
	by SpaceGhoti on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 09:56:35 AM PST

	This has to be the least inflammatory, most considerate article I've ever read on this site, particularly from this author. I am both amazed and singularly pleased. I'd like to take this time to point out that after 26 years of voting Republican (Dubya's political master), last year I voted Independent. Okay, Green. Gore and Dubya were both making promises that were either outright lies or patently absurd and impossible to keep. While I have no particular desire to see Nader elected to office, I thought it would be good to give him some support to try to shake up the United States' political logjam. Not that it had much effect, obviously. But this is one defecting American who doesn't agree with Bush Jr. and didn't vote for him. A troll's true colors.

	To my shame (1.00 / 1) (#19)
	by SpaceGhoti on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 10:27:16 AM PST

	I just turned 30 this year. A troll's true colors.

	Oops. (1.00 / 1) (#25)
	by SpaceGhoti on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 10:42:04 AM PST

	Okay, I concede that point. I was raised by Republican parents so while I haven't been voting Republican the whole time, I've been immersed in that mindset for a long time. While I've become progressively more liberal in social matters over the past decade, I'd been voting Republican (mostly the moderates) until the last Presidental election. I hope that clarifies my statement for you. A troll's true colors.

	He was born 2000BC (5.00 / 1) (#20)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 10:28:00 AM PST

	In Siberian Russia, among primitive Hill Tribes. Of course he votes Republican.

	On point 1 (5.00 / 1) (#17)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 10:22:01 AM PST

	He didn't say that global warming is good. He asked if we are responsible for it (which we can fix), or is it the natural temperature cycle of the Earth (which we can't).

	You'll agree with him NOW! (5.00 / 1) (#46)
	by Craig McPherson on Tue Sep 4th, 2001 at 11:11:59 PM PST

	1. You can prove that global warming would be a good thing. Been there, done that 2. When your property rights are more important than my life. I have a right to extend my fist, but my right to extend my fist ends where your nose begins. You have a right to live your life, but your right to life ends where my property begins. -- If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

	In the meantime, tread water (none / 0) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 09:53:25 AM PST

	According to the majority of us, he's not really our President. There are those who are working to overthrow this case of minority rule.

	OT: huh? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
	by CaptainZornchugger on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 10:25:29 AM PST

	I'd like to take this time to point out that after 26 years of voting Republican Ye Gods, Spaceghoti, how old are you? For some reason I had thought you to be in your mid-twenties.

	I wonder who the -youngest- and -oldest- users... (1.00 / 1) (#22)
	by opalhawk on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 10:31:54 AM PST

	are. ran out of room... that is all I had to say. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.

	Then how was it (5.00 / 2) (#24)
	by CaptainZornchugger on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 10:33:29 AM PST

	That you were able to begin voting at four?

	It's true (1.00 / 1) (#23)
	by SpaceGhoti on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 10:32:00 AM PST

	For amusement, we threw children in pits with hungry dogs to fight for meat. A troll's true colors.

	man... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 10:45:41 AM PST

	where's gisano when you need him?

	Oh, but you're wrong. (none / 0) (#28)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 01:11:54 PM PST

	While I have no particular desire to see Nader elected to office, I thought it would be good to give him some support to try to shake up the United States' political logjam .. this is one defecting American who doesn't agree with Bush Jr. and didn't vote for him. A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. Oh, sure .. the check mark may have been next to Nader's name, but make no mistake about it .. the vote that you cast in November of 2000 was "Please make George W. Bush the next president." The sad irony here is that this issue (the Kyoto Protocol) is exactly the type of issue that Nader champions, and by voting for him, you and a few thousand other like-minded "independents" virtually guaranteed that it will be all but ignored by the current government. When the flood waters are lapping up against your doorstep, perhaps you'll wish that you hadn't thrown your vote away.

	propaganda (1.00 / 1) (#29)
	by SpaceGhoti on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 02:00:23 PM PST

	A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. No, really, my vote was for Nader. I had no more desire to see Gore in office than Bush. Through the logic of your rhetoric, anyone voting for anyone but Gore was the same as voting for Bush. I refuse to buy into that bandwagon mentality, thankyouverymuchdrivethrough. A troll's true colors.

	Logic doesn't follow... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 30th, 2001 at 10:31:08 PM PST

	Ack. A bandwagon mentality is good in America, at least when it comes to picking presidents. In fact, it's the only way to go. The last three presidents were elected by minorities. You can probably agree with me that this was less than ideal. If the majority of the voters had settled on one candidate, instead of the silly infighting, they would have gone much further promoting their political agenda. George Bush would have been re-elected in '92. Dole in '96 and, now Gore in '00. And Gore would have been closer idealogically to the agenda that Nader was pushing. And if I had my druthers, I'd bet that if the last 6 months are anything like the rest of Bush's term, you'd be happy to get Bush out of office. But, of course, you would never compromise with your sworn enemy, the Democrats, even if it helps passing some of the tenet's in the Green party's platform. And that's the problem with the Naderites: they're so far to the left in the way that Bob Jones University is to the right -- so "morally superior" -- that even the thought of compromise would somehow degrade their gene pool. Look, say all you want about how the Dems are sellouts, as bad as the Republicans. But, this next cycle, just don't say you're trying to get Nader elected. Don't even say you're pushing the "green agenda". Just say what you're vote was really about this last election cycle: punishing the Democratic party for leaving your politically unpopular beliefs behind.

	Logic (1.00 / 1) (#44)
	by SpaceGhoti on Tue Jul 31st, 2001 at 09:34:06 AM PST

	...don't say you're trying to get Nader elected. Don't even say you're pushing the "green agenda". Just say what you're vote was really about this last election cycle: punishing the Democratic party for leaving your politically unpopular beliefs behind. I don't believe I did. I don't believe I even hinted in that direction. I do believe I stated that I was not looking to put Nader into office; my goal was to help him break the logjam that presently stymies the political climate of the United States. Thank you for your opinions. Please try to tailor your future statements to meet the topic of conversation. A troll's true colors.

	No great difference between Gore and Bush (none / 0) (#31)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 08:19:23 PM PST

	Considering that it was Clinton who signed the NMD act, not Bush, it's pretty clear that the difference between the major parties is merely a marginal matter of how closely they are bound to corporate interests. Gore would have been held hostage in office by a hostile senate/congress. A vote for Nader was a vote for Nader. If nothing more, it sent a message to the democrats that it was unacceptable for them to act like republicans.

	Bush's Kyoto Decision a Good One (none / 0) (#45)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Aug 5th, 2001 at 03:54:41 PM PST

	The main reason Bush's decision was a good one, was that it called upon the United States to carry the largest burden of de-industrializion. Meanwhile, China and other developing nations will be allowed to burn whatever they wanted since they are new to creating industries. The second reason is there is no way the US Senate would ratify it. The final reason is we should wait until the final evidence is in that a warming world (only 5 to 7 Fahreinheit increase by 2100) would necessarily be a bad thing. Since, most of human history has been filled with little and big Ice Ages, that have withered our civilizations, would ending them be a bad thing?

	I can't believe I agree with jsm (none / 0) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 10:15:16 AM PST

	I do drive a small car (2001 Honda Civic) which averages 35-40mpg. I would've gone for a hybrid-electric Insight, but it doesn't have cruise control (I do a lot of highway driving). I only use large appliances like AC, dishwasher, washer/dryer later at night during off peak hours. I even recycle. As for new-cue-leer plants, I'd love to see more. I used to live near the Limerick NPP in southeast Pennsylvania which has (had?) the world's record for uptime for a light-water reactor. Reactor 2 was operational for 533 days. They had to shut it down for maintenance. One of the big problems for nuclear power is the law forbidding multiple power plants of the same design. Each plant must be designed from scratch, so if there's a design flaw, it won't affect all the plants. This is why we will never be able to purchase those very nice CANDU reactors from our neighbors up north. And of course, an all new design makes things expensive. It also doesn't help when a town wants to build a NPP and the aging hippies show up with their "No nukes" signs and their total ignorance to physics and engineering.

	Nuke plants. (none / 0) (#32)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 08:39:40 PM PST

	All very good for the air, but the small matter of storing 100,000 drums of hazardous waste is another matter. This is approximately the current quantity being stored in the US. Each drum must be checked weekly. Still sounding good? How about the problem of decommissioning nuclear facilities? Considering that nobody in the world has any idea how to go about this, I'd be a little trepidatious about building more. This decade sees the end of the useful life span of many of the US reactors, including some breeder reactors used to create weapons grade plutonium. I heard a story that one of the major sites (in Washingtion state, if memory serves) has a hot box the size of a room, with a floor swimming in incredibly hazardous liquid waste. There is no method known for cleaning this up. Robotic methods are under development, but thus far, have seen little success. Currently, we are not much further on from where we were in 1986, using 5000 conscripts to clean up the Chernobyl disaster. Indeed, maintenance of the Chernobyl site is carried out by humans. No protective clothing is effective for long inside the sarcophagus. The method of monitoring the structure for fatigue involves running in, taking photos quickly and running out, then taking two weeks break to get over the radiation dose. This is done for lack of alternatives, not money. The European community is devoting millions to finding solutions for the problem that Chernobyl still presents. So far, none have been found. So, the protestors may be in total ignorance of science and engineering, but at least they haven't abandoned the ability to learn from the mistakes of the past. Nuclear power is a dangerous and expensive method of generating electricity. Uranium mining/refining is environmentally destructive, and results in the contamination of waterways. The claim that nuclear power is environmentally sound is extremely naive.

	What's worse (none / 0) (#35)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 06:50:37 AM PST

	Locking up some nuclear material for a few thousand years or spewing CO into the air causing smog? I brought up that reactor in my home state for a reason. A NPP can be very safely run. Chernobyl was poorly designed and was run by unqualified people. Maintenance was so substandard that the pulley system for dropping the bromide(?) into the water tanks to stop the reaction had rusted solid. Nuclear power can be very dangerous, but saying we shouldn't use it at all is foolish since many reactors continue to operate without a single problem. Ideally, I'd like to see more solar and wind farms, but in the end those are just not as profitable as burning fuel.

	A response (none / 0) (#36)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 07:54:52 PM PST

	"Locking up some nuclear material for a few thousand years or spewing CO into the air causing smog?" Why are these my only two choices? I'll take neither, thankyou. "...saying we shouldn't use it at all is foolish since many reactors continue to operate without a single problem." I just gave you three. Waste storage. Decommissioning old reactors. Environmental destruction caused by mining and refining uranium. I don't even need to mention the potential for catastrophic accidents. But I will. Minor accidents are worryingly common in all reactors. The US averages close to 3000 nuclear accidents each year in around 100 plants. These include actual leaks. Your reactor must be the exception to the rule! These go unreported because they are described internally as "technical problems", not "accidents". Information about them seldom reaches the press. No reactor in the US runs for years without problems. "Ideally, I'd like to see more solar and wind farms, but in the end those are just not as profitable as burning fuel." Move to Germany. They are shutting down their sizeable nuclear program in favour of wind power. I guess profitability isn't the number one concern everywhere after all. (You were being sarcastic when you mentioned profit, weren't you?)

	A reply (none / 0) (#37)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 09:00:44 AM PST

	destruction caused by mining and refining uranium mining/burning coal puts more uranium in the air than nuclear power. You were being sarcastic when you mentioned profit, weren't you? No, I wasn't. Remember, this is America. Profit uber alles (or maybe is it stock price?). If it was more profitable to use solar or wind, they would. If you want green power, you have a few solutions. Get your own solar panels or wind generator (an expensive option) or buy your power from someplace like www.greenmountain.com. I live in an apartment in Michigan (no dergulated power) so neither of those is an option yet. And when you make the jump, make it known to your old power company why you did what you did.

	Nuclear power is unprofitable (none / 0) (#38)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 05:53:50 PM PST

	Monstrously so. The claim they had to being cheap died in the eighties.