Question of the Week: Your E-mails

(CNN) -- The following are CNN.com readers' comments to questions posed by the Eco Solutions special report. Please note that CNN reserves the right to edit comments for grammar, clarity and and taste.

Food and Fuels
Question: How do we make our food chain more environmentally-friendly?

Stop eating meat.

According to the UN report titled "Livestock's Long Shadow", becoming a vegetarian is the most effective thing we can do for the environment.
Charles Baran, British Columbia, Canada.

I just finished watching your story about the carbon footprint of food production and it certainly got my attention. It seems that whatever I do is detrimental to the environment. My work place releases carbon into the environment. All modes of transportation, directly or indirectly, produce and release carbon emissions into the environment. And now I am being told that the production methods of food I eat produces too much carbon.

What are the solutions? We could close down all of the carbon producing work places, refuse to travel and close down the transportation systems, and stop eating food that require energy to produce/transport. However, the obvious solution as stated in the preceding sentence is impractical because it would virtually push us back to the stone ages. There are alternative solutions available, for example, we could drastically increase the supply of clean energy (nuclear, solar, fuel cell, wind, geothermal, tidal etc...). The downer on this possible solution is that the decision makers are doing a lot of talking but taking very little action. Even if these solutions were implemented the results would be the same because the root cause of the problem has not been addressed.

The real cause of our carbon problems are seldom spoken out loud and almost never addressed because of the sensitivity of the subject. The central problem is commonly known as the Population Bomb. We simply have more people than the planet will support; and if we don't get the world's population under control, the laws of physic or mother nature will do the job for us. I am pessimistic about the chances that mankind will act before it is too late. The resources of the world are finite and we are consuming them faster the nature can replace them. Oran Mitchell Jr, Philippines

Fishing
Question: What do you think is the biggest threat to marine life today?

Men!

We have to mitigate the number of men and as fast as we can!!!

It's the most cost effective thing to do, and the best result actually too; the only solution I know and there will be.

At the end when everything is tried, the world community will come to this conclusion (too late). Politics, the industry and religious people hate this. It's the only way we can come back into balance with the planet.

Mitigation in numbers is a steady and sure goal and can be reached whining 60 to 70 years.

Climate ''sceptics'' (Lomborg) , politics and religion are hiding a secret, illegal (fat )child; its overpopulation. History has proven it, efficiency didn't lead to less consumption, only birth restriction will lead to a slowly tuning down the economy without war, hunger or unemployment,lets care for the old folks, don't struggle for the next generations.

Anyway knowing what we know the risk for a disastrous life for the newborns is so high when climate and politics are getting out of control as we see emerging already, its not even wise for parents to have children.
Tjerk Bakker, Delft, Netherlands

Deforestation
Question: The government of Guyana are in talks with the British government to "lend" the country's 16 million hectare rainforest until 2012 when a regulated carbon trading scheme is created. Do you think this is a viable solution to conserve the rainforests?

I would like indeed to offer a solution which can work much faster and much more efficiently.

This is a comprehensive plan that can improve the protection of the rainforests literally by a factor of thousands of times - in other words it can literally work thousands of times faster and more efficiently and can accomplish in a few years much more than has ever been done until now. These improvements will also lead to much more media coverage and thus speed up the process even further. Obviously the previous efforts to save the rainforests until now have not been successful, since, apart from occasional fluctuations, the rate of destruction has only increased until now, and unless drastic change is made right now, within 10-15 years or even much sooner the rainforests of this planet will be destroyed almost completely. In fact, according to recent research, quoted in one of the two references below (http://mainportals.com/billandmelinda24.pdf), we might reach the point of no return even within 2 years or less.

This improved plan is comprised of 3 main elements:

1. A preferably non-profit organization which enables buying rainforests lands and protects these lands with sustainable harvesting, based on a sophisticated recursive MLM model, which: a. Creates exponential growth of the project, and b. Adds an additional financial incentive by allowing anyone who joins to make some profit also by merely recruiting additional people.

2. Organizing at the same time also huge class action suits against main companies and individuals involved in rainforests destruction - based both on the damages caused by the deforestation itself and on the damages of consuming Soy, which is currently the biggest cause for rainforests destruction and is also a nasty plant that can cause brain damage, which should be done by contingency lawyers, i.e. at very little or zero cost to the organization, as explained in the documents referred to below. In addition, according to an article published Apr. 12, 2007 at http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3093/the_multinational_beanfield_war/ growing Soy in rainforests also involves at least in some areas using very dangerous pesticides which create huge environmental pollution and poison many people and animals, so this should also be included of course in these huge class action suits.

3. A significantly improved carbon rights trading model which solves the problems of the simplistic model that was suggested by the World Bank and led to large opposition by environmental organizations. This improved model works much more efficiently, so it will have a much larger effect on saving the rainforests.

The above elements enable reversing the profit motive, so that saving the rainforests will become much more profitable than destroying them, and the governments of the relevant areas, such as for example Brazil, will be making much more money from keeping the rainforests intact than the peanuts which they are getting now for allowing a few multinationals to destroy them. In addition, part of the damages that will be extracted from the culprits can be an additional important revenue source for these governments, which will also be much higher than the peanuts these governments would get if they allow the destruction to continue. In addition, such huge class action suits will make the "business" of destroying rainforests become suddenly much less attractive, and just like even the very existence of the class action suit against Texaco probably makes other oil companies now much more careful in their activities, probably even merely the act of filing these class actions, plus the media coverage that will undoubtedly follow, will already be able to create immediate change.

In addition, preferably the organization will also work to educate and/or convince governments of countries where rainforests are being destroyed to improve their laws where needed and/or for example their class action legal system in a way that will enable more easily to sue the companies and/or individuals that need to be sued also in these countries, preferably by explaining to these governments that they can extract much more money for example from multinationals for damages which they already caused until now than from the peanuts they get from letting such multinationals continue to destroy rainforest lands.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Coolearth.org are both seriously studying this plan now.
Yaron Mayer, Jerusalem, Israel

There are several ways through which a rain forest can be conserved. Yes, lending of tropical rain forest to more developed countries is a more viable option. But is there any guarantee that the carbon trading scheme be implemented by 2012. We can have some alternate plans to help developing or underdeveloped world for conserving their forests.

These forests can be developed as a tourist destinations and developed world can provide subsidies to their citizens for visiting such places through cheaper air fare and other taxes.
Nishikant Deshmukh, India

Recycling
Question: What are your thoughts on today's recycling programs?

The best way to handle "recycling" is to reduce the un-briddled production of waste. All too often a consumer product will have a package the far exceeds the size of the product. Blister Packs are a prime example of this. The countries that have practically eliminated plastic bags at retail outlets is a good start. But I am amazed at the amount of trash that is generated by common product packaging (CPP). From production to trash CPP's waste more energy uselessly than any other thing that I can imagine. Yet few speak up about it. I realize that the people that produce this trash will lose their jobs if this is eliminated. However, which is better, to be buried in garbage or working ar a job that in itself is harmful to the worker's health? Neither!

Personally, I prefer to but the one bolt, nut or nail unpackaged than to buy a handful of items that I don't need and will have to sort thru each time that I want to find something. This actually creates more for the landfill than anything else that I know. The infrastructure to eliminate the excess of items that are not used is the "recycling" infrastructure that, I believe, is dragging us all into the trash heap.
Fred L. Wimberly

I live in Lakewood, Ohio, where we have curbside pick-up. Our city has reached a point where our recycling system more than pays for itself, it subsidises the regular trash p/u. I also belong to a group called freecycle, that recycles household and other items directly from user to user. I also purchase items with high recycled content whenever possible.

We are at the beginning of this learning curve. When it becomes profitable for big business to get on board, they will find a way to improve efficiency to effect their bottom line. Many new recycling plant use by-products of their process to create energy to run other parts of their plants.

To say that all recycling efforts are wasteful and therefore should be discontinued is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Diane Jones, Lakewood, Ohio, U.S.

Recycling needs to be increased (all plastics, etc.). If not, our planet will become one big landfill.
Chet Mohr, U.S.

I found the latest article "Recycling" and was interested in the opinion written there. I would like to say what I think in these days with a good example of Japanese recycling case.

Do you remember that one Japanese paper manufacturer lied that they contained less recycled paper into Japanese official new year postcard than announced publicly. Then there was some discussions of percentage of composition among Japanese. Of course 100% recycled paper is better than less, but nobody reached the conclusion to reduce using paper. It seemed that Japanese believes recycling is perfect, justice and the last solution for global warming!

I would like to say that, in my concern, the key to solve global warming is to change our lifestyle fundamentally. I mean the most important thing, in the case above, is NOT to use 100% recycled paper but to reduce paper to use and waste, by changing our lifestyle. Do you respect a person who wastes paper even if it was 100% recycled? Me never. 100% or 50%? It doesn't matter!

I don't deny recycling but we need to remember that recycling is just an alternative and temporary way until we find a new lifestyle. We should not think that recycling is perfect. We should not depend on recycling.
Survir Memius, Chiba, Japan

Religion
Question: Which religion do you believe offers the most guidance on environmental matters?

Christianity does...
JB Watkins

The obvious selection is "Spiritual Humanism", a religion based in science and reality. http://www.spiritualhumanism.org/

A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge. (Carl Sagan)

We can solve the problems of society using a religion based on reason.

We cannot abandon ancient traditions and practices but we can adapt them to our new understanding of the universe. Religion must be able to adapt to new knowledge about the universe without rejecting the deep spiritual connections to human history and the natural world that we are a part of.

All humans have an inalienable right and duty to practice their own religious traditions. Spiritual Humanism allows everyone to fuse their individual religious practices onto the foundation of scientific humanist inquiry. We accept people from any religious background and recognize the validity of all peaceful religious practices and behaviors as being helpful and necessary in developing the spiritual nature of humanity.
Ron Mesic

No religion offers any significant guidance on environmentalism. The world environmental situation will only improve if religion is abolished (a tall order, I understand, but it must be done). Religious conflict (war, military production, rebuilding) the world over creates as much pollution, environmental destruction, and resource depletion (water, land, minerals, fuel) as does the peaceful operating of vehicles and industry. The future belongs to those with a firm grasp of reason.
Kasia Yechimowicz

It could be argued that since the major 3 religions all claim the same herritage, that they should share a similar view of the environment. In Genesis, God created the Earth, called it "good", and gave man a great mission, "to fill the earth and subude it and have dominion over..." it. Nobody disagrees that Christians have done this charge a great disservice, using it as license to recklessly trash the earth. They've done it less out of reverence for God, and more out of desire for "more". Add in the idea of the apocolypse to a selfish view of creation, and well...you get it.

However, I do believe that Christianity offers the most here starting with God calling it "good." My question to my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, is if God called it good, why would you think it's okay to treat it poorly? If God thinks it's good, then perhaps that's where the Christian understanding needs redeeming. Dominion should be understood in its right context, that Creation is a gift from God, and that one of our tasks is to care for it, not destroy it. If you manage a business, "managing" means making good decisions, growing the business, leading it to prosperity in such a way that upholding the responsibility meets with the approval of the owners, and perhaps a raise for the manager. No owner would hire a manager to destroy his business. So, again, my question...why would you treat it poorly?

Lastly, there was one other thing that God declared good. Actually, He says, "very good." He said it after he created man and woman. If Christians apply same logic to themselves that they've employed in their understanding of the environment, then they'd need to be actively destroying themselves. And that's just dumb. My Christian brothers and sisters need a reminder that true worship is viewing things as God views them. God thinks Creation is good. So should we.
Joe Day, Seattle, Washington, U.S.

The nontheistic world views (Atheism, Humanism, Ethical Culture, etc) are the most eco-friendly because we realize (1) there is no god to make everything better and (2) there is no afterlife to focus our attention on. Without expectation of divine intervention, we learn about the world around us and we care for it. We do it without fear of punishment or hope of reward. Environmentalism is a reward in itself. It is not surprising that nontheism and liberal policies such as environmentalism are more often found together than evangelistic religion and environmentalism.
Jason, Boston, Massachussetts, U.S.

As far as being hindu is concerned ,we are taught from the earlier age to worship trees and faunas and take them as integral part of our living but as we all know ,where our material interests are concerned,we are blind eyed towards our mother earth .i don't think any religion tells their people to outrageously exploit environmental ,after all,love is at the base of every ideology ....so every religion tells us to be sensible what has been provided to us and use that in the best interests of environment and us all.
Bharat Kherwa, India

Christianity tells us that this world has fallen from the good state it was initially created in. That people are separated from God, and cannot do good without agreeing with God that they have broken His law (think of the Ten Commandments). This goes beyond actions, but to the heart and thoughts. Hatred is murder of the heart. Lust is sexual sin in the heart.

Sin is the source of our problems: crime, exploitation (of nature and each other). God allows evil, trouble, and even death in world to show us our need for salvation. He is angry with sin, and will give justice in the end.

Salvation comes from trust in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Jesus' death paid the price of our sins, and makes it possible for us to be right with God. When we trust in Jesus for salvation, we are given a new life. And, ultimately, God will make a new world. He makes all things new.
Edward Brekelbaum, U.S.

Energy
Question: Which alternative energy source do you believe is the most underused?

The most underused energy is the efficient energy use. The elimination of lost must be looked like an energy source; and it is cheap.
Edivaldo Soares Sposito, Brazil

Medium and small thermal gradients are sources of TW power.
Manuel Ramos San Javier, Murcia, Spain

I believe that solar power is the most underused energy source. It is the most prevalent. It is the primary source of energy on which all other sources are dependent, and as such secondary.

Devices such as solar towers, thin-film solar panels, thermal solar water heating systems and parabolic solar steam generators for steam turbines are all constantly increasing in efficiency and should be used more in areas with lots of sunlight. There are vast desert regions throughout the world practically begging to be used as sites for these technologies.
Mike Burnett, The Netherlands

Cars
Question: What is the future of eco-friendly cars?

The rhetoric around the natural conflict between global warming, clean air in our cities and our vehicle preferences is continuing to escalate. I find this debate important and rewarding because I am hopeful it will cause us to focus upon and create innovative solutions in both the short term and the long term.

While motorists across the United States are anxious for the day when a low-cost energy source will propel vehicles with far greater efficiency and effectiveness, we must be able to capitalize on currently available technology to help provide research and development time to hit that mark. That being said, I believe that the new ultra-low sulfur diesel is the most underused real alternative to gasoline today, as we search for the ideal solution for the future of transportation fuels.

The new diesel fuel, when combined with the new 2007 diesel engines, reduces green house gases by almost 20% per mile driven vs. a comparable gasoline engine. Anyone who believes that diesel engines are noisy, smoky and slow has not had the opportunity to drive the recent turbocharged diesels with Bluetech emissions technology. Diesel engines have become perfected in Europe over the past two decades, and in Europe today more than 50% of new vehicles are diesels. Additionally, beyond using less fuel to travel longer distances, the comparatively lower vapor pressure of diesel and bio-diesel fuels reduces emissions during fueling by more than half when compared to gasoline or ethanol.

Thus, for the benefit of clean air, energy security and allowing us to continue to drive the size and performance type of vehicles we desire, I believe we must use innovative diesel and diesel hybrid technology today and pursue all the innovation that scientists and engineers can bring to the table in the future.
Jeff Morris
President and CEO
ALON USA
Dallas, Texas, USA

My opinion of this topic is that eco-friendly cars are going to be facing an up-hill battle for some time to come, due to the better prototypes being bought for ridiculous amounts of money by the major fuel companies to keep them off the roads.
Mark Humby, Adelaide, Australia

Hydrogen is the way to go.
Al Shackelford, USA

I believe the technology of combustion engines is 19th, 20th century at best. Canīt believe the industry hasnīt come up with something better. Just look at how small and powerful cell phones became in such a short time span. What about computers, even? The automotive industry should have turned towards electric cars 30 years ago. They deserve all the heat for not doing it.

And local authorities need to make a policy for the days when oil will be history. Now. Public transport, room for bicycles, infrastructure for e-cars, less giving in to lobbyist.

Big problem: go to a motor show, talk to the reps of ANY manufacturer, at ANY booth. All men, all hp-freaks, 8-cylinder fans, all dreaming of owning a Porsche one day - instead of driving their own "boring" company VW/Ford/Subaru. This is an industry where engineers and old-fashioned thinking rules. Their "greener" and "cleaner" statements are lip service, at best.

So yes, the future of cars has to be electric. What other option do we have? And if that means smaller, cheaper and less powerful, I am all for it. Thanks for addressing the topic.
Regards,
Bernd Dietrich, Rossdorf, Germany

I think our survival as a nation depends on eco-friendly transportation. Individual transportation modules (i.e., cars) will continue to be the preferred transportation mode for many people, especially where population density is not high enough for mass transit. In addition to solving the problems of fuel sustainability and pollution while running cars, the total life cycle of cars needs to be environmentally safe--old cars should be raw materials for new products.
Gael Chaney Martinsville, Virginia, U.S.Bali Summit

Industrialization
Question: Do you think sustainability and good environmental practice can be reconciled with rapid industrialization?

I think a good environmental practice can safe our planet by 50% for the next 20 years or longer. Somewhat, population growth is a biggest factor in our planet. We could educate millions of pple but how do we have the money, time and good will to educate billions of people?
Vincent Dang

Question: What do you want to see accomplished at the UN summit on climate change?

The out right nerve and gall these people have shocks me. 10,000 people fly on jets to a remote location in order to "save" us from the deadly climate change. CNN should critisize these people for their hypocrisy. CNN should regularly point out that the planet was much warmer 1000 years ago. CNN should point out and consider that mass media have been reporting the imminent end of our race/planet/environment for over 100 years sometimes from ice sometimes from heat but always reported as authoratative fact. You should report about how the scientific consensus Al Gore has reached with the scientific community required him to require press and scientists alike to agree prior to attendence to support the "consensus". In other words consensus by exclusion of any differing evidence or point of view.
James Slippert, U.S

I want to see some real targets set. I have heard that the US is still fighting against setting real targets, stating that we still don't really know what needs to be done. I believe that 2030 Challenge set forth by the AIA would be a good start. It is time that our elected officials quit stalling and do what the people are asking for. Change.
Edward Wansing
Director of Sustainability
Gould Turner Group
Nashville, Tennessee, U.S.

These guys just want to meet up and go blah blah and earn some publicity for themselves. The fact is that nobody wants to do anything about the gas emissions because nobody wants to lose their revenue from the same! And we know they make lots and lots of it.
Pradeep Vijayakumar, Chennai, India

E-waste
Question: What do you think needs to be done to improve e-waste recycling rates worldwide?

Action needs to be taken both in first world countries who export ewaste as well as in third world countries who import ewaste.

First world or OECD countries: 1) ban ewaste from landfills 2) establish and enforce national ewaste regulations 3) sign and enforce the Basel Treaty

Third world countries: 1) enforce the Basel Treaty import provisions and their own domestic laws prohibiting the import of hazardous waste without official permission 2) work through the UN or other world body to gain funding for the creation of an ewaste processing infrastructure that provides safe jobs while extracting needed raw materials

The Basel Treaty already provides guidelines for handling toxics like ewaste worldwide, however there is zero enforcement of the treaty provisions, while the US as the major source of ewaste, has yet to even sign the treaty -- the only other country not a signer is Afghanistan! The hunger for precious metals and other valuable raw materials present in ewaste, which has driven up the price of these materials worldwide, practically assures that corrupt officials will allow ewaste to pass through third world ports to unregulated and unsafe ewaste processors who inexpensively extract the valuable without regard for the toxic. The high prices paid for the resources locked up inside ewaste, equally assures the first world happily exports the responsibility and relatively high cost of processing ewaste to the lowest cost provider.

China, as primary producer of consumer electronics and primary consumer of ewaste, and the US, as a primary consumer of electronics and primary producer of ewaste, need to provide the leadership if anything is to move forward. The European Union to its credit has passed the WEEE directives, but again, lax enforcement and high metals prices still drive European ewaste dumping in India and Africa. Solutions are relatively easy while action is very difficult if not impossible in the current climate -- see "global warming."
Sam Trautman

Mandate manufacturer take-back and prohibit export, except as a processed feedstock for manufacturing.
Rob D'Arcy, Hazardous Materials Program Manager, Hazardous Waste Recycling and Disposal Program, Department of Environmental Health, County of Santa Clara, California, U.S.

To be honest, there is a lack of knowledge of what we (the Chinese) are doing to protect the environment and reducing garbage used. Although the Chinese government is always appealing to us to save resources.
Ge Winters, Beijing, China

Geothermal
Question: Do you think geothermal energy holds promise as a leading alternative energy for the future?

As Executive Director of the Geothermal Resources Council, it would be helpful if the Production Tax Credit was extended beyond 12/31/2008. Furthermore, it would be great if the US Department of Energy were supported by a comprehensive energy policy, which included cooperative investment with the geothermal industry in research and development e.g. helping subsidize exploratory wells. The capital markets are beginning to show considerable interest in this clean, sustainable, baseload form of energy. It has conservatively been estimated by Goldman Sachs that only about 12% of this resource has been developed in North America and that 38,000 Megawatts can be developed. For the world, only about 6.5% of this resource has thus far been developed.
Geothermal energy is still a very young industry.
Curt Robinson, PhD Executive Director, Geothermal Resources Council, U.S.

Alternative Energy
Question: Send us your thoughts on what you think is the most promising type of alternative energy.

I think spains solar mirrors beaming onto a boiler on a tower to make steam generated electricity is one of the most direct ways of generating high amounts of absolutely clean power with no harmful effects. As opposed to the direct solar-electricity conversion panels like I have on my house which are only about 12% efficient. there is a thermo generator that has been invented in the USA that uses heat played onto P & N silicon to directly convert heat into low voltage, high current electron flow that is then inverted into useable power. the fellow who invented it uses gas to heat his unit but any heat source including spains reflecting mirrors would also work.
Ray Abbott, electronics & solar engineer, Queensland, Australia

Alternative Energy
Question: What kind of support is necessary to develop alternative energy to a level competitive to fossil fuels?

For alternative energy to become competitive with other fuel sources, there needs to be a greater shift in public awareness. From how we consume energy in our daily lives to how we can cut down our own personal and family carbon footprints. I don't think subsidizing companies directly is the answer because this doesn't encourage companies to use funding in the most competitive manner. People should be encouraged to buy energy through local alternative suppliers and they should be given some type of or a full tax credit for the premium they pay above regular local energy. People who can't afford the premium worry enough about just having electricity. The middle and upper class, who will most likely purchase premium-priced alternative energy, will have an incentive to consider alternative energy. This way, we allow the free market to award well run and competitive businesses which will only help the industry itself as it strives for innovation and efficiency. The government will see more tax revenue as profits increase in the industry and the additional the additional monetary burden will go to those who can afford it and desire to help the country and environment.
Ryan Rhodes, Ohio, U.S.

What about sufficient governmental subsidies, in all countries around the world, to make alternative energies very competitive? We will have to be switching to them soon anyway, given global warming. The alternative, waiting for the disasters the scientists predict to play out, is pretty terrible. (The governmental subsidies would be money given to alternative energy suppliers to pay for part of their cost of energy production, letting them give consumers a very competitive price.

Additional governmental subsidies could also be given for research on how to produce alternative energy in less costly ways; however, given the imminence of the effects of global warming and the unpredictability of research breakthroughs, this type of subsidy is not recommended until alternative energy is very competitive. Indeed, when alternative energy companies become dominant in the industry, they will also contribute to the funding of their research on how to reduce their costs, so that they can gain a greater share of the market. Further, any additional governmental subsidies for research in one country, where alternative energies are already very competitive, would be better spent paying for part of the cost of alternative energy production in other countries where alternative energy is not already very competitive - because global warming is not one country's problem, but a problem of all countries. In short, subsidize so that alternative energies dominate the market - and so that horrifying global warming disasters do not occur - and, then, later, after having averted the horrifying global warming disasters and deaths, think about how to reduce the financial costs of alternative energies so that we can live with nature in a more cost effective way. I.e. priority #1 is to avert the global warming disasters; priority #2 is to make alternative energies cost less to produce. If we focus on priority #2 and do not succeed at priority #1, there will be tremendous human costs.)

Lastly, it should be noted that it takes time for our reductions in emissions to take effect. If we wait until we, personally, are in dire straights, it may be too late to do anything about it, because of the time lag between our actions and the effects of our actions. It is like seeing a dictator come to power, and then doing nothing about it. And then seeing the dictator take the lives of one minority, and then another, away, and doing nothing about it because one was not one of the minorities. Finally, when one sees that the dictator is coming for one on the following day, one calls a high ranking official who is a friend, to come and help out. One leaves a message, but the official is away and won't check his messages for 3 days - too late. We need to act now to save ourselves, our fellow human beings, other species, our environment, and our planet. We must focus on priority #1 above by helping to pay for part of alternative energy companies' cost of energy production so that alternative energy companies become very competitive, because if we focus on priority #2, even if we succeed - which is not guarenteed - it may be too late to implement the new ways of generating energy to achieve priority #1 - averting global warming disasters. Indeed, global warming disasters are already starting to occur (with much larger ones on the horizon).
Geoffrey Kagel

Cold Turkey-- the complete revamping of our energy policy with the total disregard to job losses in traditional energy sectors. Alternative jobs and more of them will be created by the newer and softer industries. Support needs to come from the federal government which includes some 300 billion dollar reduction of the military budget.
Stephen Demczuk, U.S.

Tax fossil fuels (evening prices), invest income in research, beta production of alt. energy, new infrastructure.
Phill Maus

1) The nation needs to be told the truth, what is possible short term and long term as far as technological progress and feasibility in regards to money investment and effort. What I mean by the truth is not what the environmental, political, transportation, and energy industries' PACs or lobbyists say, but what scientists and business leaders say they can do. There are a lot of groups out their pushing their own agendas and pipe dreams.
2) Funding and effort is needed on a very large scale. This would be like a Manhattan style Project being funded by govt and industry. Funding via a special federal tax on all individuals that would be untouched by politicians pork projects or by redirecting to other agencies/projects. Have major taxes on high polluting energy industries and inefficient energy users. Start reducing over packaged products. From my experience, Enforcement works, but, probably most important would be major tax breaks to drive the industry in the right direction.
3) Western Civilization Nuclear power is safe and clean, build, build, build. Use the newest technology and best designs.
4) Explain it to the people in a Ross Perot style visual and facts presentation, over and over. Keep it simple, but have detailed information easily available for those that like the details.
5) The people are behind this and willing to bite the bullet if we get the message, transparency, fiscal responsiveness, and a strong honest leader and support staff to lead it and us.
6) We are funding those that want to kill us and destroy our country, we are harming ourselves by inhaling pollutants every day of our lives, we are contaminating our land in which we live, and we are wasting and using up a lot of the Earth's resources and reducing the species/food/life chain of the planet. 7) Population growth, the discussion has to start. It is hard to believe that the planet can continue to support many more humans with all their needs and wants.
Bob Krug, Valencia, California, U.S.

Household Luxuries
Question: Tell us what household luxuries you would sacrifice to reduce energy use?

1. Double door fridge for a single door.
2. Noisy airconditioner.
3. External water heater.
4. High watt decorative lamps around the house and roof tops.
5. Electrical grill.
6. Electrical water heater.
Eng.K.C.Veeranna Setty, P6R & 'Waste Walk back' Specialist

Worm Composting
Question: Do you have any other examples of low-tech environmental solutions?

Try mushrooms for bioremediation of toxic and other wastes. Paul Stamets has a book on the subject, "Mycelium Running - How Mushrooms Can Help Save the World."
Vin Lava, Manila, Philippines

1) Make fluorescent bulbs mandatory; don't charge sales tax on them
2) Get rid of the drive thrus
3) make cars lighter use more aluminum
4) no tolls or parking fees for motorcycles
Robert E Harley (N-Superior)

GM Food
Question: What do you think of the use of genetic modification techniques to improve the resilience of rice?

The Problem w/ all of the GMOs in the wild is the total lack of any care about the *precautionary principle.* While GMOs may someday live up to the hype in their press releases AND be proven safe, to date neither of these is the case. Adequate testing on the safety of GMOs has not been done, even when preliminary tests have shown potential serious problems. Many of the companies involved in developing this technology have long records of deceitful, nefarious and downright illegal business practices.
Joe Naftel, Springfield, Oregon

The most important consideration on GM crops should be if their consumption has no negative side effect on man when consumed...if this turns out positive, I'm down with GM crops! If on the contrary, it's not; then the focus of scientist should be on how to make it safe before they start consideration the option of making it widely available for human consumption... I do not think taste should be a big issue...
Paul Ahaneku, UK

Firstly, your piece makes it sound as though all scientists think that the genetic engineering of rice - or any other plant for that matter - is necessary. That's not true. There is substantial debate in the scientific community about both the necessity, desirability and capacity to achieve the kinds of traits the GE industry has been promising for over a decade. There are other high tech methods of securing improved resilience in rice. Those methods, such as marker assisted selection, are not only more likely to work they do not come with the risks that we now know exist with GE crops nor the public resistance to GE, which shows no signs of abating.
Jeremy Tager, Australia

We don't need Monsantos GMOs. Rice has been around for over 5,000 years without some multinational tinkering at the gene level for no other motive than profit.
M Davis, Canada

Landfills
Question: How do you think countries and local communities can improve their recycling practices?

The human race, specially those living in towns, are producing huge amounts of garbage-waste, which are mostly dumped as landfills. This garbage contains numerous heavy metal and other noxous products. Nobody can foresee how these products will poison the earth and the groundwater in the future. Part of this garbage could be burned for energy, but producing Co2 is another danger. For sure, other and better systems to get rid of these mountains of garbage will be found in the future.

In the meantime, I propose : a) compress it into hard blocks: b) wrap these blocks in permanent material that can withstand rain, sunshine... c) build pyramids with them, foreseeing open spaces inside which can be used for storage of other nocous products waiting recycling in the future, (nuclear waste f.i.) or for other usefull storage. (such as dismantled cluster bombs, f.i.) These pyramids, placed in deserts with lots of shunshine, could be used to produce, with solar energy, as well electricity for poor nations, as well as drinkable desalinted sea-water for regions where there is lack of it. Instead of spending billions of $ for killing people and increasing the gap between the very rich and the very poor on this small planet, these PIRAMIDS would become the definite signs of the real global civilisation actions our actual generation would have been able to achieve in this century .Signs are there that, if not doing something about it, we will be quoted as 'the great destroyers' by those who will have escaped, if any.
Marcel Schuer, Belgium

Three big solutions: 1) Reduce the amount of waste in the first place. Develop strict multinational requirements to severely limit packaging and prohibit packaging and products that are not easily recyclable. Unnecessary and wasteful packaging is the largest part of the consumer waste stream, and a large part of industrial and commercial waste stream. It is obscene to buy a 3 ounce item that has a pound of packaging that can't be easily recycled. There should also be a high tax on packaging, and labels should have to disclose the portion of a products cost that pays for the packaging. If consumers know that they are paying a high cost for packaging, they will change their buying habits. 2) Make it easy to recycle. Mandate that all retailers must have easily accessible recycling bins at their stores so that consumers can deposit unneeded packaging and used products in the bins at the place of purchase. Mandate that all consumers and businesses have a recycling bin available to deposit their recyclable wastes. Promote recycling more! Offer prizes for consumers and businesses who have not put recyclables in the waste bins. 3) Follow Europe's lead. Mandate that all products be completely and easily recyclable.
Phillip Blum,
P.E. Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch
California Department of Toxic Substances Control

Solar Energy
Question: Why do you think solar power makes up such a small percentage of our energy use?

Because there isn't any money to be made. Beyond selling the hardware (panels, etc) what is in it for energy companies? This technology has been bogged down by people out to serve their own self interests, not the greater good of mankind. It is all about money unfortunately.
Nathan McGarity, Plymouth, Indiana

One of the reasons for solar power's not having enough research dollars allocated to it is political. There is no political will by the current powers that be to shift from where their money is invested that is, in fossil fuels. For them to change direction would hurt their pocketbooks. Besides, anyone on the planet could benefit from the power of the sun. There would be massive shifts in the economies of so-called third world countries if solar power were to become the dominant form of energy used throughout the world. People would no longer be able to be subjugated for the resources under their soil (colonized). The balance of power would shift irrevocably and those in current positions of power want that far less than anything they can think of. Imagine, as John Lennon said...a world where....
Janet Salahuddin

Two reasons: #1 Many of us are waiting to see how the technology evolves. It has come a long way since it was first put into use. Glass panels have been replaced by roll-up plastic panels--much cheaper to produce and use. #2 Big business has not figured out a way to exploit it. Gillette doesn't make money selling razors, it makes money selling razor-BLADES. Same thing with any other business. But they can't figure out a way to make money on something like solar power.
B Morgan

Because the goverment and politicians, big corporations have not figured out how to milk the American people yet.
Jackie Howard

Well, I think it's because our weather condition is so changeable that we can't control it very well. Perhaps Africa or South America have the advantage to develop solar technology, but the government rarely support it. Global warming is more and more serious. If we can take advantage of solar technology well, the problem of global warming could be solved.
However, as I know, every solar equipment has the high price and people can't afford it. Depending on oil too much for many years, people actually cause a lot of problem damaging earth. Too much co2 from burring oil is the most serious damage for the earth. Yet, many people keep buying oil for their daily usage and even many countries will foment a war for oil. Why? I think it is because the utility of oil is stronger than solar power. The technology of solar power is not stable and people rarely have the idea that how much profits that solar technology will bring to their pocket. Perhaps people think that oil can be touched and be seen, so it's quite convenient to use.
Of course, government's attitude is also a part of reason that solar technology could be used or supported. I suggest that UN can invite not only the members of UN but also the other non-UN members to have a meeting to discuss this issue for every county has the responsibly to protect our earth and save the energy.
Mary, Taiwan

Common sense why solar only makes up a small percentage - it is too expensive! The solar panel costs have increased many times in the past years, and the tax credits are very slim.
There are also practical limits of having my roof covered in solar panels and a high voltage transformer in my backyard for my children to get electrocuted. Solar technology is 50 years off base easily.
Joseph Stevens Katy, Texas

I believe the reason why solar energy continues to be underutilized is the cost of the photovoltaic cells still provide an unfavorable return on investment.
Joseph Rowan

I believe the reason that solar power makes up such a small percentage of energy usage is because the fossil fuel sectors receive large financial subsidies from various governments. And cost is the most important factor for almost all users. If the current subsidies were removed from fossil fuels and placed with the renewable energy sectors the price of solar would be attractive to the masses. In America's case the cost of military interventions are not factored into the real costs for foreign energy. If it were to be, the cost of oil would be much, much higher making solar still more attractive, or inversely, fossil fuels less attractive. This model will only secede when there is enough public pressure and political will to change the status quo. In California and Ontario the governments are writing legislation that provides incentives to the renewable energy sectors slowly reversing the support for fossil fuels. More jurisdictions are sure to follow.
Doug Lata, Canada

Solar makes up such a small percentage of our energy use because the true costs of coal-derived energy are not reflected in its price: destroyed mountains and streams; ruined lives of coalfield residents; destroyed wildlife habitat; disruption of ecosystems; lives and health of coal miners; carbon dioxide; acid rain; mercury pollution. Another factor is coal companies' contributions to candidates' campaign coffers (you're going to have to give me some points for alliteration!).
Vickie, South Charleston, West Virginia, U.S.

I taught 7th grade science for 31 years.
There was a man on the outskirts of Coatesville (I think it was Sadsburyville) that built two very cheap solar energy "traps" that heated his house very nicely for practically nothing. The story was in the Daily Local News, West Chester, PA., years ago. I mentioned the concept to my wife. Her comment? "I wouldn't want those ugly devices on the back of our house." So, one reason why, but perhaps not the most important, is that solar devices can "ruin" the appearance of a house.
But I think the most important reason why is because the developers want too much money for them. Why do they want so much? Because of the old matter of greed -- charge as much as the economy will bear ...
Third, the government WAS giving tax breaks to people with common sense, but I don't think they do it any more.
Lastly, I will end by telling you that I was telling my 7th graders that we ought to break away from dependence on the mid-east way back in the late 1960's and early 1970's by putting the American farmer back to work and developing alcohol/gasoline mixture. I was way ahead of my time, huh? . . . just like I told the first President Bush to stop the immigration crossing the southern borders . . . way back . . .
T. Bhame Coatesville, Pennsylvania, U.S.

Solar Power is a small percentage of total power used in the world because the completing fossil fuel technologies are HEAVILY subsidized and are back by political muscle from very large established companies in the oil gas and coal industries.
On average solar energy has received an average of $2.5 Billion in subsidies over the last 20 years. Fossil fuel industries and the nuclear industry receive (directly and indirectly) approximately $500 BILLION in subsidies PER YEAR.
It is NOT difficult to understand why an industry (fossil fuel and nuclear) that receives 250 TIMES the support of another industry (solar) would be the dominant one.
Peter Lynch, investment banker

It is because no big energy business will support it. This is because once the system is in place there is no residual income to profit from solar energy. Cars use gas, or ethanol, and conventional electricity requires turbines to run. Solar power just doesn't make anyone filthy rich.
Robert Kraft, U.S.

I majored in environmental science in college. I remembered in one class we watched a documentary on fossil fuel. A similar question was asked in that film -- all fossil fuel has a finite amount while the sunshine is free. The answer was simple. For us as humans, everything on this planet is 'free'. We only pay the money to collect them. As for now, collecting oil is less expensive than collecting sunlight, so we collect fossil fuel.
Zhu Shengyong, Shanghai, China

Why does solar energy account for so little of the worlds energy? The answer is simple: $$. The world revolves around big business, and the biggest right now is petroleum. People love driving cars and operating machinery, and to do that we need to burn fuel. It's the fastest, cheapest, and comparatively (nuclear power, etc) safest way to produce energy. Here, the Golden Rule applies: he who has the gold makes the rules. Petroleum business will simply disappear if other alternative fuel businesses start eating away at their income. Tides, wind, geothermal, solar, biofuel, piezoelectric, too many to count. They're all ways to fuel our cars and watch our televisions. They'll never come to pass though, because if they do, petroleum businesses will cease to exist. Massive amounts of workers will be laid off and the power will change hands. Naturally, big businesses can't let that happen. Through propaganda and political sleaziness the big petroleum businesses continue to operate and pollute the planet. Slowly but surely, however, people will begin to see the beauty of a wind turbine spinning idly in the breeze and the downright useful nature of turning that dreadful summer sun into a cool A/C. Slowly but surely things will change. At least, that's the hope. If things do not change gradually, things will be forced to change abruptly when the planet runs out of petrol. That will be, in a word, cataclysmic.
Mark Mercier

I think that solar power represents such a small percentage of the market because it represents such a dramatic paradigm shift from our current energy platforms. Mankind has the tendency to resist change and become comfortable with certain ways of life. Unfortunately, we have become complacent with technologies that destroy our environment, pollute our air and water, and create political unrest on the global stage.
In my mind, the only way that we will ever reach more realistic levels of photovoltaic use is if 1) it is mandated by the federal government, which, lets be honest with ourselves will never happen. Or 2) the price of typical fossil fuels becomes greater that the investment and maintenance costs of alternative resource electric generation. We are getting close to that breaking point, but it will take a large and/or cataclysmic event, such as a massive gasoline shortage, to "open the eyes" of the average citizen, to make them "want" to use alternative energy sources.
John Mendenhall

I think the largest hurdle to overcome is the lack of reliable, unbiased information. My comments are based on the individual's view of a single-family solar pv system.
Consumers know about solar, but which panels are the best buy - based on initial cost, maintenance, etc. Do I REALLY need to have my panels track the sun? Are there major difference based on where I'm located?
What about charge controllers, deep-cycle batteries, and inverters? What is the best system, and who can I trust to help me design and buy the best alternative for my needs?
The initial expense is non-trivial, and consumers are uncertain on the best path.
Brian E. West, Evansville, Indiana, U.S.

The curse of solar power is the capitalist system. There is fundamentally no incentive for anyone to put in the necessary R&D to develop a system which will then make them no money. This is why Biodiesel and Ethanol fuel sources are being promoted by industry - they still create a constant need on the part of the consumer. That being said, I'm still a fan of green capitalism - as a youth, organic foods were almost impossible to find, and today, due to supply and demand I can find organic tofu at the 24hr grocery on the corner. I vote with my dollar, buying things I approve of and attempting not to pay for things I don't approve of (although I still pay for war through my taxes). To paraphrase Winston Churchill, Capitalism is the worst system in the world, except for all the others....
Breckenridge Cartwright

The main problem with solar energy at this moment is the efficiency of solar cell is very low (about 15%) and poor storage. We have to do more R&D for producing highly efficient solar cell and heavy duty battery storage.
Bais Ahmad, Malaysia

Food Leftovers
Question: What do you think is the most effective way for us to cut down on the amount of food we waste?

Let us start with the kitchens from where food preparation takes place and control the amount of food required for the number of people. It is a simple matter of food management. This should not be a difficult task at all if we are made to be responsible for our waste. It is sad to note how food waste is an everyday occurrence in our daily life in America and elsewhere in the advanced countries. Thank you for the opportunity to express my view on this subject. Abdul Yusif, U.S. Navy

I live in Germany, and here we sort our garbage into 3 piles - Plastics and foil-type wrapers, paper products and "bio" which is food scraps and the like. The garbage trucks pick up all of the garbage, but the compost goes to a special center where it is made into fertilizer and then sold (or given, I am not sure) to farmers and local gardeners. It is also so easy to save your food scraps and compost in your kitchen or in the garden. All that is needed is a closed container. Some people like to use red worms to break the old food down further.
Another thing is to just not eat as much! Smaller portions and plates will allow people to make a choice if they want more food. Less would go to waste!
In the United States, I think that since restaurants throw away SO MUCH food every day, they would make a great first example. There should be city or locally run composting centers, and the compost could be sold or given to residents or farmers as a cheaper and more environmentally enriching fertilizer than artificially created ones.
Andi O'Rourke, Germany

One effective way to re-cycle left over food is to redesign the garbage disposal unit to handle ALL biodegradable foods, perhaps with the exception of avocado pits, which is hooked up to a separate container that collects the mulch. The collected material is then ready for transport to a facility that will convert the mulched food waste into a usable form of energy - either fertilizer or fuel, etc. By removing food waste from the water drainage/sewage systems, less energy is required for water treatment!
Jules Trek

If I had to point to one way America can limit its food waste, I'd say getting restaurant diners to cut the amount of food they throw away. To do so, restaurants should reduce the size of their usually massive portions. Also, the all-you-can-eat buffet is another waste hot spot. This model devolves into all-you-can-waste because there are no consequences for taking too much food. In contrast, there would be much less waste at a pay-by-weight buffet. Is individual action enough? No. There's waste throughout the food chain, from farm to fork. While individuals can certainly make a dent in our American squandering, we also need cooperation from farmers, wholesalers, food processors, retailers and restaurants.
Jonathan Bloom, www.WastedFood.com

As I watched the program about the problem with the food waste in Hong Kong and probably other cities I wanted to share what happens in my village (in Bulgaria). In Bulgarian villages almost in every house people have live stock - chickens, pigs, sheep, goats etc. and in my house people have one bucket which is called "For the Pig" and there we put all food leftovers, all leftovers from vegetables and fruits (like peels etc.). As people produce most of the food they eat and have no leftovers for the trash can garbage truck comes in the village once a month and the cans are usually half empty.
Other thing, I have a friend who has a restaurant. He has a deal with one meat producer to give him all the leftovers from the restaurant and the farmer gives him nice discount on the meat. As we see the shortage of grain as we use it more for Bio-fuel and the worse harvest because of the shortage of the climate change. I am sure that all that energy put in the food to be produced, transported, cooked, served etc, can be at least be partly saved as we feed the pigs and help it from eating our oxygen and produce more C02. I don't think my advice will have any effect on global waste politics but imagine what relief will be if we cut one third of cities' waste.
Jefry Sax, Bulgaria

This subject of wasting good food has bothered me for years. In 1992 when I moved to France for a while, I was surprised at the quantity of French bread (pain & baguettes) that are produced. I wondered where the leftovers went as French people always must have a fresh bread. Being an animal lover, I approached a manager friend in a restaurant and sked him if he save me the leftover bread from the restaurant. Voila, two days later I picked up a huge sack of baguettes whole, along with a full sack of cut pieces. I did feed the pond ducks, birds and even my dogs and chickens with these leftovers. After seeing the quantities from one restaurant, I questioned why this bread, in baguette form, could not be collected, piled into boxes or sacks, loaded into airplanes which are always flying to distant countries anyway and given to the hungry that seem to exist in every country. I passed on my idea to the late Audrey Hepburn who was an ambassador to UNICEF, not knowing at that time that she was dying. So my idea went nowhere. I still think its a great idea as the bread in this form does not go moldy (unless wrapped in plastic) it is light and can be stacked with no outer wrap as it is sold. Even when it goes hard, it can be reconstitued with water, milk or other liquid for nourishment. Airplanes can always find a bit of space for a few sacks and then it can be distributed from the airports. In this modern age of flight, I think many products, we consider "waste" could be distributed to the poor and hungry of the world. It takes a bit of effort, some volunteers that care and maybe a little money that is currently being spent on a stupid war effort. What say you?
Angela Blondeau, France

Make consumers pay for what they could not consume. I suggest in hotels or restaurants consumers should be made to pay tax on their leftovers-- say 75 percent tax on the cost of meals they purchased. Tax should also be imposed on the proprietors of the hotel/restaurant. In homes, tax should also be imposed on landlords/tenants.
James Bello

I think the best way is to have the restaurant or any food packaging company to serve in different size, including the small size. Most of the time if we go to restaurant or buy a package food/meal, they come in a large size (the smallest will be medium). Some people (let say who's controlling his weight/on diet, or for any other reason) don't really need that big size. They just want a small size. But most restaurant comes with big size or medium size. What happen next... leftover. And somehow, these restaurants make the big size sounds cheaper.
Eric Siregar

Hybrid Transportation
Question: How can we make hybrid technology accessible to all?

I am a strong opponent of the hybrid car. This is because of various reasons.
The cars weigh much heavier than normal vehicles of their size. This is caused by the battery packs located in the vehicle and the "double" engine, the electrical motor and the combustion engine. The batteries are very bad for the environment to produce and even worse to break down, this is simply impossible to do. In my study I have worked together with modern car recycling companies and they all answered that they do not take hybrid cars in, because they can not take them apart in a safe way for their employees. This means when in a few years more and more hybrid cars are being scrapped there will be a HUGE environmental disaster.
Also the so called lower emissions are not much lower than that of modern diesel engines of comparable size and power output. The most advanced engines can achieve less emissions without even using particle filters.
For example the Toyota Prius produces 104 gr CO2 /km and the VolksWagen Polo Bluemotion just 102 gr CO2/km. The VW doesn't exactly use exclusive or state of the art technology. Also the usage of fuel is not exactly special, in all hybrid models out here now. My own car,a 11 year-old Suzuki Alto, with highly outdated technology achieves 50% more economy !!!
If it is not clear to most people by now, these vehicles are mainly used as a promotion tool. It creates very nice sales and good promotion for Toyota,Honda and many other companies. Greenpeace and probably even CNN and others are profiting of it (higher viewer numbers by such discussions).
As I am currently learning all the technical details about it from teachers that have worked in this business, I can provide you with in-depth pictures and technical details if you like. Perhaps it would be interesting to show to the public in an item that this is all a big hoax. If you like you can have my cooperation on this subject, including everything in my reach such as advanced automotive equipment in the Netherlands.
Sjoerd Reverda, automotive engineering student, University of Rotterdam, Holland

I find the obsession with Hybrid cars rather perplexing. The amount of engineering and that is going into the vehicles is amazing for very very little especially if we compare them to other non-hybrid environmentally friendly cars. example:
Petrol
---------
TOYOTA Prius 1497(cc) 104CO2(g/km) 65.7mpg - Hybrid
TOYOTA Aygo 998(cc) 109CO2(g/km) 61.4mpg - Non hybrid
Diesel
---------
TOYOTA Aygo 1398(cc) 109CO2(g/km) 68.9mpg - Non hybrid
CITROEN C1 1398(cc) 109CO2(g/km) 68.9mpg - Non hybrid
Agreed the Co2 output is marginally higher but its certainly not massively different. Secondly, there are waste disposal concerns with the hybrid cells. Yes, there are plants to process these but to we really need to create more waste? I don't think so. We should be focusing on cars that have zero Co2 production, no waste recycling. Especially when we have cars that are just as environmentally (or more) friendly than hybrids
Kase Lite

Hybrid cars are more expensive than conventional cars because there's a lot more to them. While it's fun to think about alternate energy sources and alternate ways to use energy, neither of these approaches addresses the underlying problem: we use too much energy. Until this is addressed we're not going to make any progress. That said, hybrid cars always will (and always should) cost more. When you add batteries, electric motors, regenerative braking and the engine management system, that adds up to a lot. All THAT said, hybrids only have limited application. They're good runabout cars but don't have much, if any, advantage on the highway and their benefits reduce further as the vehicle gets larger.
Doug Fuller, Woburn, Massachusetts, U.S.

Plastic Bags
Question: What do you think is the best way to reduce the use of plastic bags?

Biodegradable bags. How come this isn't an easy solution?
Tracy A. Flanagan, La Jolla, California, U.S.

Money is humankind's greatest incentive. The key to reducing the consumption of plastic bags is to play according to the rules of economics, i.e. impose a 'PlasTax' (as in the case of Ireland) and encourage people to bring their own bags. Plastic industries will be compelled to find biodegradable alternatives in the interim.
Suganya Naidu, Singapore

Actually the usage of plastic bags should not be encouraged, every individual should have to take a responsibility of not using the plastic bags. Additional taxes to be levied on the vendor if the product sold by them is packed in plastic bags. Government should enforce a strict law against the same and make people to adhere to it by fine / extra penalties. We as a individual has to take care of our environment. People should be educated on the ill effect of using the plastic bags.
C. Sathyanarayanan, Chennai, India

Use cloth and reusable bags or the Chinatown shopping carts.
Monique Miles

To reduce use of plastic bags, I can think of two options off the top of my head.
1. Make the plastic bags recyclable. All store can offer a reward (discount, giveaways, etc) when you bring back the bag from an earlier purchase. It is like the Loyalty Schemes of airlines and hotels. Obviously the bags have to be sturdier than the normal ones in use nowadays.
2. Introduce jute bags as a organic natural substitute. They were standard use items in my childhood. They were used for everything from shopping bags to bags for bulk movement of sugar, cement, etc. The jute bags used to have as much advertisement appeal as the current plastic and paper bags do.
PS: Let us keep in mind that plastics are a byproduct of the petroleum industry. And if the material is not used for commercial end product, how will the waste be disposed off by the refineries?!!!
L. K. Shah, Chennai, India

Personally, I'm not a fan of doing away with plastic bags. I recycle, drive a low emissions vehicle, etc., and I reuse the plastic bags from Ralphs, Vons, Rite-Aide, even Taco Bell, and Baja Fresh -- they make GREAT! disposable bags for my dog's waste. Did you know there are companies out there actually making plastic bags explicitly for this reason? AND SELLING THEM? They come in pink, blue, black and other colors. So, if there's some kind of program we could create to eliminate the duplication of their creation, and instead encourage the reuse of plastic bags (by 44.8 million dog owners across the U.S.), I think we could solve a lot of waste reduction problems AND keep our parks and side walks doodie-free.
Kathy Kniss

Bans on plastic bags ignore one central fact - plastic bags are 100% recyclable. The trick is making it easy for consumers to do. This involves establishing at-store recycling, municipal drop-off, curbside and other easy ways to recycle.
Once the bags are collected, there is thriving secondary market for plastic bags. TREX and AERT, for example, are companies that use recycled plastic to manufacture new products including durable lumber for decking, railroad ties and new recyclable plastic bags.
Some advocate substituting plastic bags for paper, but according to the EPA, paper bags generate more water, air and solid waste pollution when manufactured than plastic bags.
Our organization, the Progressive Bag Alliance, is partnering with retailers, distributors and municipalities to make plastic bag recycling work. Please review our Web site (www.progressivebagalliance.com) for more information and useful recycling toolkits that you can share with your local retailer to increase access and awareness about plastic bag recycling.
Donna Dempsey, Senior Managing Director, Progressive Bag Alliance www.progressivebagalliance.com

Sell cotton or other natural material bags at supermarkets. Encourage consumers to bring them along on shopping trips by offering small incentives such as discounts on other environmentally friendly products such as local produce or fair trade coffee.
Danny, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S. E-mail to a friend