Skip to main content

Your Comments

Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font

(CNN) -- This is where we publish your general comments about the Eco Solutions show and website. We welcome all constructive comments. If you want to write in with comments and suggestions, please remember to include your name and country of residence.

The compact flourescent light bulb is a poor option; high mercury and not nearly as efficient as the LED lights patented but not produced at reasonable prices, while manufacturers recoup their investments in the now-obsolete compact flourescent bulb technology. Phillips and others need to absorb their losses, accept that we won't need to be buying bulbs nearly as often, and release their strangle-holds on direct-replacement LED light bulb development and sale.
Mike Green, U.S. Navy

There are three developed magnet engines that could solve all of our energy requirements. These devices produce unlimited kinetic energy from converting potential energy from powerful new permanent magnets into rotational kinetic energy.

The three patented inventions that I have studied are: The Minato Wheel(various sizes) by Kohei Minato of Tokyo, Japan; The Perendev 300KW triple wheel by Michael Brady, South African now working in Munich, Germany; and The unbalanced magnetic rotor 5KW by Wang Shum Ho of China.

If these inventions were mass produced, there would be no energy problem.
Kenneth R. Ball

Many of the things that are being promoted as eco-friendly options for us are really not so good for the environment and, functionally, not much better than the items we are trying to replace with them.

There is a tendency for many of us to embrace technologies and products simply because they claim to be green. In some cases either the sales department is so effective at marketing a product to us that we sincerely believe it is better. In other cases we may simply just settle on an item and suspend our disbelief and some good old common sense because we want to help our earth so much, well, it just makes us feel better.

The reality is we all need to examine our choices with care to ensure that those things make things better rather than making them worse.

Here are a couple of cases from our family that have made us more careful.

--SOLAR PANELS--

A few years ago I thought it would be smart to put solar panels on our house. The theory was that these panels would help eliminate part of our CO2 contribution to the atmosphere. After doing a bit of research I found that the type and efficiency of the solar panel made a huge difference between helping and merely making me feel good that I was doing something.

It turns out that the silicon cells used to make solar panels need to be made in a furnace that consumes a huge amount of energy. In fact at every step of producing silicon solar cells, from digging up the silicon, to making the calls, to making the metal frame that the cells are mounted on, takes energy. The kicker was, at that time, it took more energy to produce that solar panel than the panel would actually produce in 25 years. Not only that, all of the energy used in the production of that panel generated CO2. 25 years of CO2 just to make me 'feel' better. I have stepped back from following through with that idea.

--DISH WASHING LIQUID--

We are a small family. We wash our dishes the old fashioned way; in the sink with suds. Thinking we were being smart about the environment we used an 'eco-friendly' brand of dish soap. On closer inspection, that soap was made from surfactants made from coconuts, and citrus. It smelled nice and really washed dishes well. The problem is that, thousands of miles away jungle peat bogs are being cut down at an alarming rate to produce coconuts. Coconuts to produce bio-diesel, coconut palm oil, and surfactants for soap. When peat bogs are dug up, the peat begins to break down, producing massive amounts of CO2. We switched to a locally made dish soap; still made with biodegradable surfactants, but *local* surfactants not made from coconuts.

--ORGANIC IS GOOD...AND SOMETIMES BAD--

We thought it would be wise to support sustainable agriculture and, in turn, get some great organic vegetables. We signed up with a small local company that would deliver a weekly box of fresh veggies to the door. All seemed to be well. One day I was looking over the vegetable invoice and noticed that the *majority* of our vegetables were being shipped from places far away. Other countries in fact. Our vegetables were contributing to global warming due to the distance that they needed to travel to get to our door. With a little more research we were able to find a similar service that focused on providing local produce. It was a bit more expensive, but at least I'll be able to look my grand kids in the eye and say we helped.

--A NEW CAR--

We've been looking into a new more fuel efficient family car. Our old car runs well but we worry that by not improving our mileage we are damaging the planet. At first getting a more fuel efficient vehicle seemed a no brainer. Now, after a second look at the implications of buying that new vehicle, we're not so sure. Manufacturing and shipping that new car consumes a huge amount of energy. The better thought, in this case, was to improve our mileage by driving less, walking more, and completely *using up* our old car until it's completely finished.

It takes a bit of careful thought to be sure that our helping the planet doesn't cause harm. I'm sure we will have other bumps along our road to eco-friendliness, but with a bit of common sense I'm sure we will succeed in reducing the size of our footprint.
Peter Willis

I would like to add electric cars to eco-solutions, even if they are now in developing stage and can harm environment a lot (like used batteries from hybrid cars). But they give prospect to avoid burning the fossil energy sources and limit the CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.

Also the last Eco-Invention (#8) the hydroelectric dams create more harm to environment than may give from clean energy production: They strongly disturb river ecosystems; the best known result is disruption and decline of salmon populations in West Coast, create oxygen depleted water masses in polluted rivers, create risk of floods for people living down the river dams and fill-up with sediments in time, what make them useless. There are too many warning problems in connection with dam projects. This is why in many countries people start to destroy them. Of course moving water is a great source for creating energy, but it should be done a different way, not by creating dams.
Andy Simm, New York, U.S.

We all want our world in a good shape without any extremeties. This can happen only if we change. First thing we should come out of our comfortable life or comfort zone and all of us should get into hardship. At least the upcoming generation should follow this. We want less polluted cities for our good health. This can happen only when we avoid the usage of vehicles that run on fuel. So for this we should tune up our brains to walk or ride bicycles instead of a car or some motor cycles. Else we all should restrict ourselves with one four wheeler per family and no more than that.
Borra Krishna, India

Being aware is most important. I tell all my friends to watch CNN!
Lorraine

I want to let you know about a real green solution, currently developed in Latvia. A small company has recently received funding for their Solar Botanic Energy systems. The company is using Biomimetics; using nature's design to benefit the human needs. The company is building constructing artificial trees and plants. These trees and plants are fitted with Nano leaves, these Nanoleaves are a combination of the latest nano technologies for harvesting solar radiation (light and heat) and wind energy via nano generators. This company will deliver real natural looking trees and plants that convert 3 available energies in one system, not only is this very efficient, but it is a solution to the irresponsible use of our land and eco systems. Just think of all the benefits and applications these trees will have in the future.
Roberto Machia

I'm engineering student and I belive that the eco solutions is the way for our Earth's future. The way we can do this is to use eletrical geration for simple things that we use every day. But the big problem are in field industry. Industry is the bigger danger for the enviroment.
Esdras Cunha Sellos, Brazil

There are ways to produce hydrogen gas in excess using nuclear power plant by adding certain parameters and making arrangements. My article on water fuel shows the classical and universal principle on how hydrogen gas can be gotten in excess from water and water bodies through series of channels and by nuclear reactions, controlled nuclear reaction within a metallic plastic rates having a furrow in the opposite side where water is passed in through a channel, hydrogen gas evolved from water is passed through another channel to be stored. The principle is that red hot metal will emit hydrogen gas from water, and the heat supplied to the metal by the nuclear reactions, the nuclear reaction is being fueled by its own product through another channel.

This is a mere proposal, but if this principle can occur naturally to produce light and heat energy, then this idea is feasible. I got this idea from my research on cosmology - I did wonder if there is water in other planets in space. My thought has just been proven correct recently on BBC outlook.

Now I could say that the hydrogen fuel that produces massed helium nuclei in the sun comes from water, water present before the big bang explosions. According to my theory on the origin of gravity, molecules gain energy from big bang explosions and split up into atoms and even sub-atomic particles that start to fuse together. My proposal on water fuel is universally classical; hydrogen gas can be produced in excess from a small and controlled nuclear power plant.
David Ehiabhi Akhator
Member of Alternative Energy World / Energy Resource Center UK

Thanks for the opportunity to write to you about this important subject.

I was amazed when I saw a report on FOX news about a man who ran his car and operated a blow torch on just a little bit of water. I thought that a story of this magnitude would be followed through and at the very least be reported by all major media outlets. My son, who apparently is more savvy than me, said that this would probably be the last that we would hear about this development. I'm sorry to see that he appears to have been right.

In any case, it is all over the internet and, in particular, is getting hits on youtube. It is called HHO and is also referred to as Brown's gas. Perhaps you could report on this seemingly incredible innovation.
Vic Norian, U.S.

Thank you for a most informative and well researched article about the enviromental impact of shipping.

But one thing I found missing in the article was an assessment of the relative impact of shipping.

I.e. the emissions (sulphur and carbon dioxide) measured relative to the ton*mile of cargo shipped.

My suspicion is that shipping could well turn out to be one of the most eco-friendly forms of transporting cargo. I.e. that road, rail and air transport could in fact be even worse in terms of eco-footprint relative to ton*mile shipped.

I am only curious -- and believe shining some light on this could only help the debate. But I fully share the concerns about the overall impact of shipping, and agree that there is a lot that can be done to improve the situation.
HP Bohn, Oslo, Norway

As a professional involved in fuel cell developing I think that hydrogen powered fuel cell can be mentioned as an eco- friendly energy source. The fuel cell is capable of powering homes, offices, transportation, portable devices. There is no emissions, noise, and waste. I think that technology can be developed faster into a mature one if greater attention will be paid. The attached photo of the fuel cell of a fuel cell stack assembled in H2 ECOnomy can be posted as an example of the eco solution/product. Any other fuel cell also can be posted. Arman Danelyan, Chief Research Engineer, H2 ECOnomy, Armenia

The CFL compact light bulb is a disaster when it reaches landfill as it contains mercury and is a health risk when broken. Digital publications if used with existing PDA's is great, but having a device just to read a book is counterproductive as it has harmful batteries, etc. Is this the best that can be thought of? No wonder we are in trouble.
Bruce Crumley

Biofuel is quite good for use since it's hardly flammable but the fact that it causes falls in the capital markets, rises in food prices, it might lead to a land mark effect in the world economy. So as a scientist I advise that a renewable and easily available source should be used e.g. water, using hydrogen fuel from water. Biofuel should not be eliminated but supported by the alternative source water cheap and readily available.
David Ehiabhi Akhator, Energy Resource Centre, U.K

Hi, I do something on a daily basis that helps curb global warming. It's really easy and it is something anyone can do. Not only will it fight global warming but it helps the world and individual in many other profound ways. The fact is this is the most powerful tool any single person has in this fight! An estimated 30 million americans are already doing it. It's actually quite simple - go vegetarian...!!

A recent U.N. report claims that the livestock industry is the leading contributer to globlal warming. In fact it evidences that it is worse than ALL the other causes COMBINED. This is huge and yet it is ignored. That is just wrong. Simply because your editors or writers eat animals is no reason to ignore this. Going vegetarian not only helps the planet and fights global warming but it also increases human health and reduces animal suffering. I find if very disturbing that the U.N. proves it is a leading cause of global warming but everyone, including you, ignore the fact. It's immoral and deplorable. If you're serious about providing the means for individuals to help it's criminal to ignore this most powerful means.
Robert Hirschi (vegetarian for over 20 years)

Plastic is ecologically unfriendly only when disposed as solid household unsegregated residues and industrial unreprossed rejects on land fills. Otherwise all plastics are recuperable and reusable through the same or different processes.

The key to recycling is the separation process which unfortunately at the present time is only coded by a range of numbers addressing only the most commonly used plastics and only understood by the professionals.The full name and mechanical properties of each plastic should be clearly printed or embossed on the product itself.ie: hdpe15xl.2 ( high density polyethylene melt 15 cross linked second time reprossed)or Nn66.I ( nylon 66 post industrial) That tells a lot on the material , its value, and possible recycling market directions and applications. the recycle sign and the number are no longer of much help for efficient and reliable recycling A new chart is necessary since already reprocessed materials are returning to the recyclers. Otherwise no standards can be set on recycled materials.

One great threat in example is contamination before , during and after processed. PET and PVC recycling is of great concern for recyclers . They look exactly alike, have almost the same application and are unmarked. Yet 1% of blend of one of these materials on the other and a specific lot of recycled material is considered contaminated and unrecuperable.A total lost and destined to land fills.

The other part is that it is almost impossible to pay per kilogram the amount of supermarket bags or expanded foam products.They are the plastics that are the most widely exposed to the consumer with the most widely territorial spread and are the most difficult ones to reprocess. So plastics leave us with the after taste of wrong doing.

One of its principal limits is the ratio weigh/product. In instance, a high density polyethylene five gallon bucket or a soda crate are gold for the recyclers because of their weight per unit ratio. A plastic supermarket bag is however a much different story when it comes down with styrofoam food containers on weight /volume ratio. Where you can recuperate from 2 to 3 pounds per bucket or crates one can only get at best 10 grams for a supermarket bag or an expanded styrofoam unit.Supermarket bags and styrofoam food containers are the most widely exposed to the consumer with the greater territorial spread and aside the plastic bags, styrofoam to my knowlege can only be compressed after being cleaned for reprocessing or dissolved with expensive and disposable solvents.

Small manual but yet powerful compactors can be set at fast foods dispensers and greatly reduce the cost of disposal and/or reprocessing.Household supermarket bag containers should be mandatory and the content be recollected periodically by contracted recyclers.For styrofoam containers, they should be washed and disposed at the building or neighborhood and compacted by a small electrical or manual inexpensive facility compactor. Its just a bit of sacrifice for a much needed clean environment!
Issa David Talamas, Port-au-Prince , Haiti

Most rural household in Bangladesh have one or more cows. As a result, cow-dung is readily available to generate biogas, and is being already produced, however not as extensibly as should have been. The reason is the lack of outright cash in the hands of the farmers who form 80 plus percent of the rural population.

Our initiatives in rural Bangladesh includes environmental awareness generation. We need small funds to construct some demonstration biogas plants which would encourage more people to shift from firewood burning to biogas use. We are also looking to develop composting toilet - a major concern for the protection of drinking water.

Please help our efforts. Our website is: www.poribesh.org
Nurul Huq, President, Poribesh, Bangladesh

The marketplace for eco solutions is full of home energy gadgets that get the green-light, er...steal the limelight...well - let's just say that CF lightbulbs and Toyota Priuses get all the attention. These things are great and represent a step in the right direction; however, there are harder working eco innovations out there that epitomize the way we must view the future of environmentally friendly invention. I don't want to beat up on the CF lightbulb or the solar powered attic fan. Things like this can have a huge impact on energy consumption and reduce emissions worldwide. But to the carbon footprint and energy cost scheme of a typical consumer, home lighting only accounts for 5% or so of home energy consumption. The hybrid vehicle and promise of carbon fuel cell devices are equally impressive. But on a net effect basis, these hyrbids and all hydrogen fuel cell innovations have the nasty habit of reducing emissions at the site of consumption (the tailpipe) and transferring it somewhere else. Let's say Ohio or Pennsylvania to the belt of coal fired powerplants that will eventually make the electricity that extracts the hydrogen from seawater or illuminate the CF lightbulb over its lifetime and power the factory that's producing the lead-laden batteries for the Prius. So, I'm suggesting that two eco solutions that we don't think about everyday as novel green accomplishments be put on the list.

I nominate: the city subway / metro / tube - whatever you call it, in whatever city, subways must save millions of tons of CO2 emissions and other ghastly pollutants each year (maybe each day). It's extremely important that consumers - the people with the eventual power to make decisions that will encourage innovation - realize that it is their everyday lives that determine the course of eco friendly innovation. And that being green can involve just doing what we already do. Getting from point A to point B requires work. Work requires fuel. And the subway is a highly efficient way of getting from A to B with a minimal expenditure of energy (or money) per rider. The New York City subway I ride uses regenerative braking to pump power back into the third rail. This saves the energy that would be lost accelerating and decelerating rapidly between stops.

Here are a couple of other examples. These are things that the masses would not commonly recognize as eco solutions but promise massive reductions in emissions. They will also improve quality of life at the same time. It is in this very narrow sweet spot between technological innovation and consumer convenience that the future of eco innovation will develop. What will 'they' think of next? Maybe we've already thought of it!

- cross-docking / FTL shipping / intermodal transportation logistics: it used to be that when you needed to ship something it went on a truck. Your own diesel burning, highway clogging truck that would take your stuff to where it needed to go. Maybe the truck was full. Maybe it was half full or mostly empty. Now, the stuff we buy travels on versatile shipping containers that can be packed full of many different types of stuff to maximize efficiency. Using RFID technology to track product as it moves, we can literally find the most efficient way to ship something using multiple modes of transportation. At transport hubs, the goods can be switched around from ship to truck to train as necessary to get them where they are going. Over the long haul distances, train travel uses one or two engines to move hundreds of truckloads of stuff. Then the local delivery route kicks in and truck traffic takes over for the local delivery function. For urgent shipments that are going by air, goods are stuffed into the cargo area of passenger jets to take up extra capacity. Right under our feet while we are waiting to take off. It's a nicely orchestrated dance that goes on behind the scenes.

- the virtual conference room. Business travel is insidious for the environment. Personally, I log in at least 40 short haul flights and over a dozen trans atlantic flights per year for business. All to show up on the client's doorstep and talk or show them things. (Well, I'd like to think that there's some skill that goes into it as well, but show and tell is the gist of selling as far as the earth is concerned). There are some remarkable new technologies in video conferencing that require a new catchphrase. Because video conferencing is the nauseatingly jumpy pillixated image with tinny robotic sound that makes your meeting seem more like a reenactment of the Blair Witch Project: Corporate Edition. The new wave involves a virtual conference table with life-size plasma TV displays and strategically placed cameras that can actually replicate eye contact around the room.

- New Urbanism: can an entire movement in home design and architecture be considered an eco solution? Absolutely. There's too much to say about this topic by email but it is certainly an eco solution that can reduce billions of BTUs of energy consumption, while delivering a healthier, happier, more convenient lifestyle. When I think of summarizing the merits of new urbanism in just a few blurbs, here is what comes to mind:

a) it's design that discourages urban sprawl. The car plays second fiddle to walking places, using integrated mass transit, and having everything you need right where you need it instead of in a collection of strip malls or office parks connected by congested highways that are under perpetual construction/expansion to meet the growing demand.

b) great innovations in earth friendly architecture find a home in new urbanism as well. Let's say, central geothermal heating / cooling plants that can be shared by an entire community to decrease the need for individual heating/cooling/hot water units. Smart building materials choices like bamboo for wood flooring, low-E coated windows, in-floor radiant heating, and smart planning that orients buildings properly in relation to the sun and uses smart landscaping to reduce the amount of water runoff from roads or traps it for irrigation.

c) density. To accomplish the new urbanist lifestyle, a certain amount of population density is required. But it can be smart density that gives people their own spaces and eliminates the cookie cutter lifestyle that plagues suburbia.

d) check it out in action: I think this project will be known as one of the largest new urbanist design projects in the world. www.libertyharbor.com. I am moving in here shortly. The light rail train runs right through my backyard, connecting me to where I work in NYC in about 35 minutes. Or to anywhere else in town in about 10 minutes. There will be 20,000 people living on about 80 acres of land by the time this is done.

This has been fun. Hope you are getting lots of great submissions. I will keep an eye out and look forward to following this piece.
Adam Freedgood

I saw your presentation on the reefs of indonesia and potassium cyanide fishing.

Thank God someone is at least bringing this to light.

Please keep up the good work!!
Gary Douglas, San Francisco, U.S

Hei! I followed your programme over CNN and fell in love immediately.

Well I am a Cameroonian interested in youth, rural and social development issues at the international level. Considering the much talk on globalisation which happens to be as old as our world itself. I am thinking here on my knowledge on Continental Drift Theory. Since I did study Geology while in high school. So expect more next time as regards my contribution in making our world safer and secure.

For the U.N.secetary general is right to relate environmental issues with peace. Here the issue of agriculture and rural development run fast in my mind of course centering on youth and the underprivileged.
Fidelis Folefack Anang, Cameroon

My name is Yossi and I am the founder of SolarsBay.com.

The idea behind SolarsBay is that as technology improves, it would be possible to transfer solar energy on a global scale, using existing Internet infrastructure. People who live in areas around the world were solar energy is more available (areas close to the equator, for example) will use solar panels to capture solar energy and will transfer excessive energy over fiber optic lines to the global grid. People who live in areas where solar energy availability is limited, closer to the north poll, for example, will purchase that energy, directly from the people who 'uploaded' their solar energy to the grid. That will create a P2P, eBay like marketplace of solar energy.

When the technology will become available, a person living in England, for example, will be able to park his electric car at night and have it 'fueled' with energy provided by solar panels on rooftops of people who live Northern Africa, for example.

I would be glad if you could visit my site to read more about the Global Solar Energy Grid. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any question or suggestion you might have.
Yossi, SolarsBay.com

My solution to the energy crisis and to global warming involves multiple changes.

1.) Fixed outdoor lighting needs to be put on timers. It is wasteful to light major portions of continents well after most people are in bed.

2.) The CFL's are not the answer. There is a much better and less contaminating technology...LED's.

3.) Too much reliance on global trade where local trade consumes less of our fossil fuels. Global outsourcing has produced great strains on energy supplies as well as greatly increasing carbon emissions.

4.) The most energy-efficient means of land transport is rail. Overuse of semis needs to be curtailed.
Robert Bateman, California, U.S.

Many people think that their lifestyle changes are not going to make much difference and "are not worth the effort."

It would help if people could see greenhouse gas reduction in terms they can readily comprehend.

Recycling 10 lbs of aluminum cans avoids xxx lbs of GHG.

Avoiding 1 lb of plastic shopping bags avoids xxx lbs of GHG.

Air conditioning in tropical climates is almost a necessity. Some offices are not insulated (wall & ceiling).

How would insulation decrease GHG?
Paul Tobiason, Recycling Association of Guam

The climate crisis, dependency upon foreign oil, rising fuel prices, a crumbling highway infrastructure, a decaying power grid, unemployment, and a failing economy are enormous problems that face our nation. Many of these problems are shared by the entire world.

The Solar Roadways will eliminate many, and potentially all, of these problems. The Solar Road Panels collect and store the sun's energy. It's been estimated that enough energy from the sun hits the earth every forty minutes to supply the world with all of our energy needs for an entire year.

The Solar Roadways is an interconnected system of structurally engineered solar panels that you actually drive on. They will replace our current roads, parking lots, and driveways. Each Solar Road Panel is approximately 12' by 12' and will be designed to provide the same traction as current asphalt roads, but will use LEDs to "paint" road lines and will contain a heating element to eliminate snow and ice accumulation. It will take roughly 5 billion such panels to cover every road, parking lot, and driveway in the United States. That's enough to produce three times the amount of electricity that we currently use as a nation. It's almost enough to power the entire world.

The implementation of the Solar Roadways will eliminate the need for burning fossil fuels to create electricity: the cause of approximately half of all greenhouse gases. This new electric road will also allow recharging of all-electric vehicles anywhere along the roadsides or in parking lots, solving most of the battery capacity issues that inhibit a fast adaptation of electric vehicles. Eliminating the need for internal combustion engines will also eliminate our dependency upon foreign oil, along with the other major cause of greenhouse gases.

No more need for petroleum-based asphalt, the cost of which is skyrocketing. The Solar Roadways replace our current outdated centralized power grid with a smart, multidirectional energy network and acts like a conduit for data signals such as telephone, cable TV, high-speed internet access, etc., to be delivered to businesses and residences via their parking lots and driveways.

We'll liberate people from coal mines (and other fossil fuel-based industries) and retrain them to manufacture and install Solar Road Panels. We'll build factories in every state, creating millions of new "green collar" jobs. Joint cooperation between private and public enterprise could create the "New Deal" of the 21st century, solving many of the needs of society one driveway, one parking lot, and one road at a time.

Please stop by and take a look at our website: www.solarroadways.com
Scott Brusaw, Idaho, U.S.

Have you heard about biodiesel and ethanol from algae? One of the biggest players in this research and development is Green Star. Problems with biodiesel is you can't get enough from crop land. (only about 30 -- 150 gallons per acre per year) Algae can potentially produce 10s of thousands of gallons per acre, although it still has a lot of technical hurdles to surpass: Here's one company that's doing quite a lot with the technology: http://www.greenstarusa.com/
Laurie Gengenbach, U.S.

Being an MBA and a graduate in Journalism, do not think I have an out of this world new invention but am writing only to request that through the global media leader I would like to propose that every Saturday and Sunday be observed as a "no vehicle day", with permission to those who have to travel intercity or to address some other emergency. This will have a significant impact on checking rise of carbon emission.

This will especially be very good for the Third World countries like mine. I live in Islamabad, Pakistan. Since last 20 years, we have noticed a marked change in the climate of the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad and believe that the measure proposed will actually do wonders. I have complete mechanics of it worked out, if only someone is willing to listen and discuss.
Imran Arif, Islamabad, Pakistan

Why are car manufacturers, oil companies, and even the [U.S.] president so set on hydrogen fuel as the next generation of automotive fuel? Why have they not embraced electricity as a viable solution? Not only is the hydrogen technology (what actually goes in each car) more expensive than electric, but production of the pure hydrogen consumes more energy than it saves in the operation of the vehicle. In addition, there is not an infrastructure to support the distribution of the hydrogen. Instead of focusing all of the energy and research on hydrogen technology, scientists should concentrate on producing electricity cleanly (and no, there is no such thing as "clean" coal).

Now the conspiracy theorists among us might think that the billions being wasted researching hydrogen fuel is going to lead to one big conclusion: Financially and environmentally, hydrogen technology just isn't able to compete with oil. Therefore, people will reject hydrogen and revert to today's gas driven cars. This is just another excuse for the oil companies to keep doing what they are doing. "There is no demand for hydrogen." "People weren't willing to pay the premium." When are people going to realize that this is just another ploy by the oil companies. They are advertising that they are spending all of this money researching new technologies, but do they have any goals in mind? Do they actually want to succeed in finding a better fuel? Meanwhile, battery and capacitor technology is improving and electric cars are becoming not only plausible, but comparable to today's gas-driven equivalents. With the infrastructure already in place, time and money could be spent on increasing the power supply to meet the increasing demand. Why aren't more electric companies pushing for this advance?
Thank you for the opportunity to vent.
Tony Ruebsam St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.

I would like to say the sad thing is that its all faiths who have a problem. If mankind stopped and looked at all faiths and see what rubbish they give out week in week out for centuries, and the idiots who believe in this great money making tax free concern, about what God wants them to do, well it says a lot for them. I believe in a god of sorts but not the rubbish that I was brainwashed as a kid. God is within you not a faith, the muslim seek evil and tell me what God says. Man can have many wives but but women can have one?? It's all man made to control the people with some fear. We see the Pope living in total luxury, and most of his followers to poor to eat. They say no to contraception and the people listen. This is a faith that allows none of the priest to marry so how can they control this? To keep the catholic population up so they get the money, same as the muslim. I say these two faiths as they most probably have the greatest number of followers?

We all have God within us and its for us to show this by helping others. It amazes me the world has so many staving people, yet these so called men, sorry no women in those clubs live in luxury. Yes the faith has lots to do with the world as it is with some stupid leaders letting them have a say in birth control. ie the corrupt government in the Philippines let the church have the control on marriage, divorce and birth control saying its not allowed. This keeps the church backing the government.

I pray every day and we have no joy in the jew and the muslim - they rather kill and rejoice and say God is on their side. Well if their God likes to kill children what chance have we? Oh no we could have another 4 years of the clintons , so who said there is a God?
Chris Ayres, UK

Get George Bush and company out of office so that the Environmental Protection Agency can police the most polluting country on the planet.
Skip Hunter

Thanks for your informative programme, ecosolutions. While it is of great importance talking about green driving, green fuels and the like, I will be happy as a Quantity Surveying student to know how construction of the buildings in which we work from, we sleep and relax in, affect the environment. Thus, I am appealing to you to give us something on "Sustainable Construction Methods as a Means of Sustainable Development"..I will be happy if you cite some African Case Studies!!! Keep on the good work.
Nhekairo Washington, Taurai, Zimbabwe

Why was a photo of a worker using waste vegetable oil to make biodiesel included in your article? The article questions issues such as using vegetable feedstocks for biodiesel instead of food. The competition for these feedstocks does indeed bring some very difficult problems and choices. Using waste vegetable oils instead of virgin oils does not contribute to any of the issues raised in your article. Used oils are being removed from the waste streams from restaurants and are being recycled instead of ending up in a landfill. Newport Biodiesel uses only waste oil to make our biodiesel and we spend a lot of time and effort explaining that we are not part of the problem. Your unfortunate choice of photo does not help in this important issue.
Edwin D Booth, Rhode Island, U.S.

There's nothing "green" about using vegetable oil to power a diesel car or truck. Vegetable oil is responsible for more illness and death than any other substance we ingest, inhale or otherwise absorb. Making a fuel out of vegetable oil is like trying to make something useful out of cigarette butts. In either case we're supporting the production and consumption of a harmful substance that should never have been allowed on the market, the use of which we should now be doing everything possible to discourage. There are costs related to biodiesel that are not being discussed. Please see the following items:

[COPY] As It Happens - I cringe every time I hear someone describe biodiesel as a "healthy" fuel. Whether concocted from fresh vegetable oil or the gunk collected from behind fast food places, the exhaust from an engine burning this stuff will be loaded with mutagens that can increase one's risk for cancer -- and there's no way to reduce or eliminate them. As for this type of fuel being good for the environment, Willie Nelson and all the other biodiesel boosters are obviously not getting the whole picture. Increasing production of oils such as soy, palm and canola for use in vehicles could lead to widespread soil depletion, higher food prices, rainforest destruction, and even mass starvation in the countries growing these crops. Biodiesel has some very serious downsides.

A few articles related to same:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgicmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7791233 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3622108.stm http://www3.telus.net/healthsciences/vegoils.jpg
Dr. Tom Anderson, British Columbia, Canada

There is a new technology for removal of sediment and contaminates from flowing rivers, that has no negative impacts on the environment. It also separates the discharge into usable bi-products. This technology is fully scalable even to river as big as the Mississippi. Check out the website (www.streamsidesystems.com)
Randall Tucker

After watching the short show about the owner of the HEAD company selflessly spending his own money to preserve our Earth- I for one, will focus on purchasing my sporting gear only from HEAD from now on.
Mike Bologna

I enjoyed reading Rachel Oliver's article on religion and environment. These differences (both between and within religions) in how people see the relation between mankind, nature and God are quite interesting indeed.

Some of Lynn White's critics have also suggested that these differences can result in different types of environmental concerns (rather than a religion resulting in less, or more, care for the environment). E.g. while Buddhists could care for the environment for the environment's sake, more human-focused religions could care for the environment for humans' sake. The debate on climate change between various US evangelical groups shows something similar: the 'flagship' point of discussion seems to be the impacts of climate change on the poor.
Arjan Wardekker, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

In January 2007, the Scientific American article cited several problems with the renewability of Ethanol. I missed the article at first, but it was drawn to my attention by a letter to the editor in the May Issue. A really important objection to the renewability of Ethanol as a car fuel was overlooked: Where is the water going to come from to grow the Corn?

Forget how many billions of gallons it will take for the distillation process, and the carbon-dioxide overhead in heating the corn mash, where is enough water going to come from to irrigate the land for corn?

The great benefit that Corn ethanol gives is that it only produces approximately the same amount on carbon-dioxide when burnt that the corn absorbs during its growth process. While this is also true of bio-diesel, the oil based nature of the product makes it less corruptible by water damage, and the fact is that bio-diesel having no sulfur, compared to the sulfur content of natural diesel will burn in high efficiency engines only available in Europe until now (recently the diesel industry has had a new low sulfur standard legally imposed on them.)

As such, bio-diesel is likely more energy friendly than ethanol. As we have seen in other Scientific American articles, clean coal strips out CO2 and S2 emissions for underground storage using ionic splitters, finally burning pure H2. If the only thing burnt in a clean coal plant was H2, there would be a lot of pure carbon left. Do we know if the resulting pure carbon would be suitable for nano-tubes or carbon fiber? The H2 having been syphoned off, instead of burnt, it could be stored in sodium-borohydride in a reversible process patented by Millennium Inc (held by Chrysler.)

The key to this reversibility is a ruthenium catalyst, which is rare, but less expensive than the platinum in an "ordinary" catalytic converter. If this H2 was used in fuel cell cars, and the bio-diesel was reserved for agro-industrial vehicles and Mac trucks, we should see an improvement in the overall sustainability of the energy economy.

Introducing fuel cell cars has long been a Catch-22. No cars no supply, no supply no cars. To bootstrap this operation, I have suggested (to Jeb Bush when he was governor of Florida,) that we replaced houses destroyed in hurricanes with houses having a fuel cell underneath the garage floor. Since the sodium-borohydride is inert, it could be trucked around like ozarka until such time as piping it became more practical.

Houses represent a steady demand market for H2 fuel, and as their cars wear out, they should be quite happy to replace the gas car in the garage with a fuel cell car. Price is still an obstacle, but it doesn't stop me thinking, or I would have thrown up my hands at the fact the Corn subsidies make bio-diesel unlikely, and suggested draining the great lakes of fresh water, to irigate Iowa. I reason that a corn kernel uses less CO2 to grow that a Soy seed, and it takes more soy seeds to produce bio-diesel than corn kernels to produce ethanol.
The main political obstacle is Corn subsidies. Soy subsidies would compensate.
Rob Johnson Dallas, Texas, U.S.

I am a regular viewer of CNN. I am a resident of Pakistan and really like your efforts for the eco solutions.

I would like to say that carbon can be turned into useful gases such as nitrogen like the catalytic converters in cars do. This can reduce the emission of carbon and other harmful gases emitting from different sources.

I would also like you to show the use of the landfill and litter which can produce methane and can be responsible for the production of energy.
Hamza Hakmi, Pakistan

Thanks for all the info you give us. I am really touched by eco solutions program. I wish to get in touch with the person rearing pigs and turning their waste into energy and fertilisers as this is big solution to our power problems here in uganda but no one has ventured into it and being an agric nation the fertilisers can be big solution.

So am ready to take on this knowledge so can apply it home this can make a big change down here so i can sponsor my self for training if i can get in touch with the person behind this project.I think this is a multi purpose project applicable in uganda and africa.
David Kiwanuka, Uganda

I read with disappointment your article, "All About: Forest and carbon trading," which unfairly equates tree cutting with deforestation and completely misses the ball with regards to tree cutting's link to climate change. While you offer a hyperlink to offer comments (which is resulting in this email), I wish you would offer on online opportunity to post a comment. Unfortunately, everybody's going to see your opinion...nobody's going to see the clarifications I would offer to your assertions.

You have relied entirely on sources that support the foregone conclusion that cutting trees is bad. Unfortunately, that is an uninformed conclusion. Even the most radical of environmental extremists are beginning to see that forest management and increased wood utilization are among the only tools we have for increasing atmospheric carbon sequestration. There is plenty of readily available, peer-reviewed, scientific literature whose conclusions, if referenced, could have made this a balanced article. And there are plenty of trained experts in forest ecosystems you could have interviewed. I only have an undergraduate degree in forest science, so I wouldn't consider myself one of them, but I would always be willing to help you find more highly qualified experts for future articles.

I find three primary problems with your article:

1. "Cutting down trees is pretty much one of the worst things you can do when it comes to climate change." Unfortunately, this is exactly the opposite of the truth. For the sake of this argument, I'll concede that deforestation is bad, but "cutting down trees" does not equal deforestation...even in the tropics. Deforestation means converting a forest into another land use. Cutting down trees, if done intensively as in a clear cut, only changes an old forest into a young forest, it doesn't de-forest it. Cutting down trees and incorporating the wood into durable products (housing, furniture, flooring, books, etc.) sequesters atmospheric carbon for generations or centuries. New trees grow and sequester carbon at a faster rate than the mature trees that were harvested. Thus, increased wood utilization through sustainable forestry and harvesting practices speeds the rate of carbon sequestration. If you accept that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of climate change (I don't yet, but your article suggests you do), then more harvesting equals faster climate change mitigation. This isn't rocket science, but you have to be willing to accept science instead of unfounded environmental NGO claims as your baseline.

2. Your article first says, "The main reason for forest clearing hasn't changed in 10,000 years...80 percent of all deforestation is done...for agriculture." Not five short paragraphs later, you argue that countries with rain forests should be compensated to protect them because they are under so much economic pressure from mining companies. Which is it, agriculture or mining? And if it truly is agriculture (which it is), will the UN-suggested REDD payments trickle down to those poor peasants who are currently clearing the forests for subsistence agriculture? History suggests the beneficiaries of such wealth-redistribution plans won't go beyond corrupt local officials. And, if, in fact, people have been clearing land for 10,000 years, is today's clearing truly of original forests? Or, are we re-clearing forests that have been cleared (naturally and through human action) many times throughout history.

3. The notion that we'll lose 60% of the Amazon rain forest by 2030 should, by now, raise some skeptical eyebrows. Since the first Earth Day in 1970, we've heard an endless string of doomsday predictions about the tropical forests. Had any one of them come even remotely close to true, we'd be arguing about the Amazon desert by now. The Plastics Council used tropical rainforest scare tactics to get plastic grocery bags viewed as the environmentally correct alternative to paper grocery sacks, even though no tropical fiber was ever used in U.S. grocery bags. A recently published study by Dr. Alan Grainger, University of Leeds, in the Proceedings of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, failed to find convincing scientific support for the accepted picture of tropical forest decline over the last 40 years. "Every few years we get a new estimate of the annual rate of tropical deforestation. They always seem to show that these marvelous forests have only a short time left. Unfortunately, everybody assumes that deforestation is happening and fails to look at the bigger picture what is happening to forest area as a whole. If there is no long-term net decline it suggests that deforestation is being accompanied by a lot of natural reforestation that we have not spotted." Grainger found large errors in the UN's global estimates, and found no evidence in the individual country data for tropical forest decline since the early 1970s! When will that fact make front page news?

Once a week, I take the time to share some facts with a fellow environmental reporter...one day, I hope it will do some good.
Dan Meyer, Charlotte, North Carolina, U.S.

I just wanted to update you. I have been in the States now for almost a month, and usually have CNN on in the background, and I can now fully assure you that there is NO ecological programming on CNN US. Zero zippo.. I think it truly sad that CNN has discarded the US viewer, and left them in their ignorance, while enlightening the rest of the world.

No wonder that the average US citizen is still wondering if climate change is really happening, with some of them thinking it is part of some left wing scare tactic.
Christine Csatary, U.S.

For a long time as an expat 40 years American, I've kept CNN international as my internet home page. Now I look at Eco-Solutions for the first time and I'm horrified to read the quote from your site I've pasted in to the top. How can you assume 'economic growth' as a good and a given?

Here's the front cover I wrote for our parish newsletter for February 08. Just going to press.

A matter of life and death Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" "I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?" Genesis 4:9

In one of the earliest stories of our faith, the son of the first man and woman kills his brother and then pretends to God that he doesn't know anything about it. After attending our Aspiring Faith Community Summer School I am convinced that if we're not careful the Christian community might end up exactly like Cain. The focus of the week was on the relationship between Climate Change brought about by human activity and the future wellbeing of all creation including humanity. Looking at the big picture through the eyes of engineers and theologians we see that we are causing the extinction of species and threatening our brothers and sisters in the poorer parts of the globe. We are doing this by cutting of their access to the basics of life through our own unrestrained growth, and our consumption of non-renewable resources. Like Cain we pretend before God that we know nothing about this.

For the past two hundred years, in spite of many warnings to the contrary, the industrial west has worshipped the god [the idol, the powers and principalities] of economic growth and labelled it unquestionably good. The reality is unregulated growth demands that lives be sacrificed on its altar. When we worship there we compromise the survival and wellbeing of creation including the most powerless and poor of our brothers and sisters -- this comes about by the not only warming but the destruction of habitat and the depletion of resources.

Instead of simply enjoying the beautiful balance of God's gift of creation we have harnessed it for the purposes and benefit of a very small sector of one species...ours. As engineer John Peet a keynote speaker at the Summer Schools says, 'humanity has itself become a force of nature capable of the destruction of the environment, like an earth quake or a tsunami.

There is already so much damage that needs to be reversed, not just stopped. So humanity's voiceless grandchildren can inherit the earth. Reversing this damage will require sacrifices in the way we all live -- particularly our choices between individual autonomy and sharing resources. Attitudes like 'I should be able to go anywhere I want, any time I want, as often as I want, and as fast as I want' will have to change. Otherwise some of our brothers and sisters will die.

We won't be able to look God in the face and say we didn't know...because we do know. Each of us has a responsibility to find out more and to question policy makers who are prepared to sacrifice the wellbeing of the whole of creation on the pyre of economic growth Let's work to make wellbeing more important than growth.
The Rev. Diane Gilliam-Weeks, Wanaka, New Zealand

To my knowledge, the shells of mollusca consist mostly of calcium carbonate . This a stable compound, which sequesters CO2 FOREVER unless it is dropped in acid. Sea sand is very often comminuted oyster shells and the shells of other mollusca.. Sedimentary rocks form whole nations,and sedimentary rocks are often composed of the shells of mollusca. It seems that Nature gets rid of excess CO2 by promoting the flourishing of snails and their relatives, including corals. The French consume 40,000 tons annually of esquargots!. So man knows how to grow animals that bear shells. Can't we copy Nature and get rid of excess CO2 in the atmosphere in Nature's way? It might prove helpful. What do you think?
Dr Joe Azzopardi, Malta

CNN's article entitled, "All About Recycling", by Rachel Oliver, did a good job at describing many of the benefits of recycling, but like most authors discussing the topic she ignores the most important parts of the issue. Overpopulation and consumerism are, without a doubt, the driving problems relating to waste and the destruction of our environment - but today's politically correct reporters are afraid to confront the issue. I could write a novel to include the many facts and figures relating to the devistation caused to our earth by selfish and thoughtless lifestyles of billions of people on our earth - but as a news reporting agency it should be your job. Hopefully, your editors will at least have the wisdom to spread this knowledge in future articles to educate the public All About Recycling. Thanks for reporting on green issues,
Charles Sternaimolo, Massahussetts, U.S.

Bush...has jeopardized our world and wildlife more than any other in the past. No to "exemptions" to environmental laws, reviewed by the military no less! Its like still testing cosmetics On animals....we've done it millions of times. STOP!!!
Debra Winn, Florida, U.S.

The internet has allowed us to share information without having to print it. That goes from newspapers to documents that you have to produce at work. We are printing less and less, and reading more and more just in electronic format. Think how many trees are saved just because of that.
Congratulations for a wonderful website and initiative.
Barbara Schieber MD. ME.

I own a holiday home in Bali. The architect that built the house fitted it entirely with LED lights. The effect is amazing! When I turn on all the light in the entire house my power consumption is only about 65Watts! The light is nice and warm and not the normal depressing white-bluish and none of the flickering that you get from the fluorescent light. And the power consumption is about a third! If you compare to the traditional incandescent bulbs the difference is even more extreme; the similar power consumption for my house would have been about 1000W.

I asked the architect why these light bulbs are not used everywhere and she told me that she has bought these bulbs directly from a company in China and that as far as she knew, the technology to make the warm white LED's is being held back due to a patent dispute (which obviously the company in China did not care about). Even bought in China the LED bulbs are still relatively expensive (about 10$ each), but as they virtually lasts forever the price does not seem unreasonable. With true mass fabrication the price should be reduced. Can this be right? Is it possible that a technology so important for the environment is not generally available because of a patent dispute? I have tried to look into this issue with searches on Internet, but have not been able to come up with an answer as to why LED lights are not readily available. Maybe it's something for CNN to look into?
Frank Jepsen, Doha, Qatar

I would encourage and demand that in order to avoid the increased rate of deforestation the UN should offer carbon credits incentives to preserve the rain forest. In this way there will be economic incentives that will off set the large economic incentives to do more logging and more bio fuels plantations in the Rain Forest.
P. Northland, Maryland, U.S.

You showed on your last show this Swedish company that bought a portion of the rain forest. Doing something like this is very important to protect our environment for future generations, to slow down deforestation and at least slowing down pollution. But if you are a huge corporation and you have the money, like in this case, it is easy to do and it looks good for all stakeholders. There are always to sides of a medal. Like all of these huge companies and AL Gore lately involved in environmental protection, this Swedish company is going to use the rain forest project to account against their carbon pollution.

There are several small groups out there that need recognition. They work with almost no budget and planting trees when ever possible. For example: Two friends are planting trees in the Philippines for the past 10 years. They are called e-cube International Development Corporation http://ecubeint.com/. In the past four month they planted almost 100000 trees. There plan is to plant five million trees in the next five years. They are utilizing properties from small farmers. The project includes various sizes of farms; in return farmers will be given incentives for their participation in this project. Part of the proceeds of this project will be used to compensate farmers for their participation and efforts under this project, and for the local communities to improve education and medical system.

This is a direct human-induced conversion of land-use change and forestry. The objective of this project is to promote carbon sequestration and sustainability farming practices by providing local farmers with technical knowledge and financial incentives, and covert unused land to plantations.

The plan is to sell carbon credits to finance the implementation, project managing and income for farmers under this project. This project will become eventually self-sustaining.

Why don't you report about those groups? They are not Al Gore or this Swedish Corporation. All companies were Al Gore was involved with are one of the major polluters.
Regards
Ulrich Lenckowski, Guam

hi ! my name is david and i'm from Brazil! in my OPINION THIS PROBLEM NEVER WILL BE RESOLVED IF HUMAN are still thinking about own objectives. This is a world problem and who should be most interested in resolve that problem, the politians !!!!!!! they dont care for the world!
David, Brazil

Dear Eco solutions!
I think it super that CNN is addressing climate change in such a frequent ongoing and engaging way! Congratulations! But my complaint is why is this not seen by US viewers????? (I am abroad right now so I have access to CNN INT) As you must know- CNN INT is not available to most US viewers. It is either not carried by their cable servers (as in such "obscure" places as Fort Lauderdale Florida), or if it is, it is part of the most expensive programming packages (as in Manhattan), which most cannot afford. The supply and demand logic, asking viewers to solicit their cable station and demand for it, doesn't work, as the average US citizen do not even know that CNN INT exists... Please push to make your informative eco-programming, helping to educate and form public opinion, mandatory on CNN USA (and not at 1 AM) or make CNN INT readily available, and mandatorily carried by US cable services, right alongside with CNN USA! It is not by accident that the US is the only country on the planet where there is still doubt as to the reality of global warming.. please help lift US viewers out of their imposed eco-ignorance! Thank you for your work, Kind regards,
Christine Csatary.

In response to: Future energy, or just hot air?
Gentlemen: What are we all waiting for? Here is an opportunity to produce fuel and, simultaneously, solve part of earth's environmental problems. Governments and private business should give this matter very serious consideration. No opportunity will come our way again this easy.
Albert Crespo, Philippines

We as Americans truly need to know the answer following question. Why are the major automakers so apprehensive about mass production and evolution into alternative fuels and cars. This town hall meeting between the major automakers and the American people should be about bringing better understanding of the eco situation that we are faced with. Maybe both sides can come up with common goals and work together to bring about favorable change that is beneficial to everyone's concern. We only have one Earth, and we do need to take care of it, right now. The town hall meeting should be on CNN's You Tube. Let us be wiser with our technology. We can communicate allot better with one another. This could be a major push in the effort to decrease global warming.
Shawn Floyd

If we could mobilize all able-bodied male and female human species of the world population from age 15 and above to plant at least ten fast-growing tree seedlings everywhere, we would be able to check global warming within ten years or earlier..
Rael Villanueva, Ilocos Sur, Philippines

An interesting article today (8 Jan 2008) on cnn.com... 'Animal waste: Future energy, or just hot air?' By Rachel Oliver

But what a stupid comment in para 8: "It's about time those cows and pigs started giving back, say some environmentalists." Do they really say this? What are their names? They must be really stupid!

These animals give their lives!

Perhaps its about time MANKIND gave something back - he's the one destroying the planet... with warfare, depletion of the fish stocks in the oceans, the Japanese destroying the whales for what they call 'experiments', dumping of illegal toxic industrial waste, destroying wildlife and its habitats to grow crops that we then destroy or turn into fuel for the motorcar that further adds to the destruction of the environment.

The problem is that humanity, as a species, is a parasite - we are destroying the host (the earth) upon which we live. And we cannot stop breeding. We have to have at least 3 cars in the driveway, at least 2 children per family/household (and one in the oven). Most breeders are permanently pregnant (despite the fact that we have turned the planet into a concrete platform beneath which we hurriedly attempt to bury the mounds of rubbish that we produce yet cannot keep up with.

Its the breeders, not the innocent livestock, that ought to 'give something back'. We ought to prevent them from breeding or, at least, limit them to one child per household. And there should be NO child support/benefit - if you cannot pay for the welfare, education and upbringing of your child, you should not be allowed to breed.

There are too many families that shouldn't even be in the genepool breeding the next generation of thugs, thieves, liars. So why can they not burn our own fecal matter? We make enough of it.
Del Normanton

Hi... Your very interesting article http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/01/14/eco.driving/index.html contains at least one error: The air car that you report as an Indian invention was in fact invented by Guy Negre, who is French... The prototype factory is also in France, and MDI was founded in Luxembourg... But don't take my word for it: http://www.theaircar.com/aboutmdi.html
best regards
Fabrice Harari

Dear Eco Solutions,

Thank you for your continuing work to enlighten world viewers on ecological matters. It is with great sadness that during my trips home to my native Florida, USA I become sadly aware of how little of such informative programming is seen by the average US viewer. Why is not ECO-solutions broadcast on CNN USA? CNN International is not carried by many cable providers, and if it is, it is often only part of the most expensive programming package, able to be paid for only be the privileged few. How ironic that the very folk deemed to be the biggest gas guzzlers, and greenhouse emissioners, the US public, is left uninformed and ignorant by a CNN USA which is more devoted to Britney Spear type stories, and to the political frenzy topic of the day, than to ecology, and to the fate of the planet. (and let us not wait for FOX News to be the ones to enlighten the US Public) Small wonder that many US citizens still question the science behind global warming.
Kind regards,
Christine Csatary

I'm a Canadian, but I've only recently returned from Egypt after spending four years there. I returned to find that LED Christmas lights have taken over the Xmas light market, and what a difference they make! I've lost count of the number of mini-lite strings (and other types) I've thrown away over the years because an entire section of lights would suddenly stop working. And every season began with replacing all the individual burned out bulbs.

In contrast, the LED lights are advertised to run for 200,000 hours before burning out -- that's nearly 23 years if you ran them 24/365! I'll never have to buy more lights, so right away you have to consider the reduction of waste from all these other types of lights going to the dump year after year.

Secondly, the mini-lites were rated at a couple of watts per bulb and the bigger onion-shaped bulbs at 5-7W per bulb. I have 9 strings of LED lights this year, 70 lights per string, for a total of 630 lights. The total power consumption for all these lights is 21.6W. That's just incredible, 2.4W per string. So, for a couple of weeks per year at least, many countries can expect to see quite a reduction in electricity consumption as people switch to LED lights, and judging from the selection offered in stores this year, the mini-lites will be gone completely in about two years.
Rick Pedley Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Dear Sirs,

I read, and hear, especially on CNN, with interest the comments that because of global warming, sea levels will rise, and there is nothing that we can do about it. I certainly agree that even if we were to stop emitting green house gasses today, the trend that has already started would take so long to reverse that global warming will indeed cause further melting of glaciers and ice caps, and if nothing is done, sea levels will rise etc...But I strongly disagree with the notion that there is nothing we can do about it. I have been advocating for some time now for the greatest global civil works projects ever be undertaken. Water from the oceans could be desalinized (current technology already makes this possible) and pumped to huge inland reservoirs (that could be created), as well as to mountain tops in winter so that glaciers could be recreated. The result of such an undertaking would be to reduce the rate of ocean levels rising, it would also create huge fresh water reservoirs in what are now the driest areas of the planet. This in turn would enable us to irrigate and farm areas that are now not usable so that not only could food crop be increased, but crops for biofuel as well. This of course would continue the positive benefit to the environment as well as future food shortage issues.

It is only a shortsighted fool who looks at a problem as only a problem rather than as an opportunity.

We have the technology to accomplish everything that I have mentioned above, the only issue is whether we have the will and the ability to cooperate globally to achieve it.
Cliff Friedman

I am an architect living in Bali and have been working in Indonesia for the past 30 years. I designed a solar electric car in 1988 and drove through the middle of Australia. Nobody is listening to real solutions and the climate change convention was a lot of happy horseshit, I also had a factory producing precut knockdown houses for 10 years in North Sulawesi. I am a Vietnam vet and started a tree farm where we planted 10 trees for every one we cut down in a rainforest above Manado.

I am afraid it's to little to late and the Indonesian government hasn't got a clue. Corruption is still rampant in the government and pretty soon we will see the destruction of our forests here. There is no mystery to solving climate change as we just have to get rid of oil. Al Gore wants us to use better light bulbs but that's not the problem.

I have lived an environmental and sustainable lifestye all my life and was born & raised in Hawaii where you can call anyplace paradise and kiss it goodbye. The hotels there used chemical fertilizer and killed all the reefs. Kill the place you make money from.

Maybe your TV news station should start to really report the news and positive solutions. Get real and stop cow towing to Cheney and Bush for they haven't got a clue. They stole my country and you still contribute to that mid set. Outside of America we get the real news. I live in Bali because I am free and safe but not in any city in America. Guns and drugs and no thank you.
Carey Smoot, Architect, Source Tropical, Indonesia

1- is it not true that the holes in the ozone at our poles are caused by the coffee cup theory (spinning bubbles in a cup travle to the outside of the cup thus creating a hole)
2- water in its frozen form is somewhat larger in volume than in its liquid form this tells me sea levals after some time will fall hemp is the way forward it allready has hundreds of pratical uses oils , papers , clothing , medicinal in fact the oil from hemp or cannabis is one of the best oils on the planet id like to see private not government investment to sort this out on large scale (flood the world with hemp products) imagine all the poorest people having the means to survive with these products rather than governments treating them as lower class criminals...
peace..
Wes, Bristol, U.K

I've seen the site, and I just want to say the following. The fact is, the world has enough technology to make it a better place, but the interest and action towards this must be awakened. Like in africa, people are dying there, Why? because they dont have food or water. Well, there is money, there is manpower, why cant the world put money into projects, instead of sending food! It costs the world so much money to sent food and aid, why not make it possible for themselves to make the food, and use it. Africa is surrounded by water, well use that, build huge watertankers and a cleaning system to make the salt water sweet water. Sent huge pipes, into the ground, and spread it through mayor countries. When it at the end come up out of the ground, settle it with sprinklers on field, and a way people can drink water. And use it for the harvest.

These are real solutions that could work, but where are the projects. No the world would rather build many high stores, then to help others in need. For huge cities, they should lear to combine nature with buildings. Architects should be more nature concerned. The reason why earthquakes also come is because they drill in the grounds to much. awakening the plates, creating earthquakes, and tsunami which lead to loss of life. Use water, instead of petrolium oil from the ground which is the blood of the earth. We ourselves make the planet sicker my sucking all the blood in it. make cars and things that work on water. We have allot well use it. Pollution will be also lesser. There are sollutions for everything, its when you put your time and effort something gets achieved. the issue isnt looking how big the moutain of problem is, but forgetting solusions. Thanks for hearing me out.
Curshen Fiqueroa

As a child i always had a feeling that foreigners from the west would bring about changes to the society, bringing about awareness on ecology. As a school student i would participate in raising slogans on Green Earth, planting saplings on Vanamohotsav day (Forest Day). I always appreciated the Westerners from Europe, U.K, US.....observing dead birds, dead animals on streets uncared for and raising voice against them.

But as an adult i found in U.S. wherein i stayed as a resident, dead pelicans, dead seals at residential areas and i felt that one has to take care of one's home. The word "Saving Earth" has reached around the Globe and there have been people taking steps right from home.
Ms. Veni

I have noticed that there is a concern about the production of CO2 and the economic effect of the shortage of oil. The price rise associated with the limiting oil reserves helps control the use of it as an energy source. But I am doing stage 1 chemistry and done limiting factors in chemical reactions. I am pleased that oxygen is one of the most abundant elements on the earth but note that there is decrease in O2 gas in the earths atmosphere. (The air with we breath.) This is essential for human life. I am pleased that in the long term there is a shortage of oil to burn because it is the limiting factor rather than oxygen in the atmosphere.

We as humans have to find non oxygen gas burning forms of energy for our long term survival. The co2 tax will help as most oxygen burning hydrocarbons produce co2 so there is an incentive to find alternative sources of energy as well as the co2 climate effect. The large scale burning of oxygen (gas) as an energy source i think long term has to stop because it is being burnt as well as the hydrocarbons. I think fossil fuels will have to run out and then co2 production produced by burning fossil fuels will drop as well as the oxygen being burnt. As the human population increases on the earth we have to learn how to share an use its resources and i think oxygen is essential in the atmosphere is essential our survival.
Thanking you for concern on the planet
Michael, New Zealand

Gore - Nobel Peace Prize winner?? For a movie??? Shameful.
Jeffrey G White

1.can the top 10 developed countries cut electricity consumption by 5%
2.can the top rich of the world cut one big car from their fleet?
3.will the UN formulate a policy to discourage tobacco cultivation and smoking and make this a regular agenda?
4.cut chemical fertiliser and pesticide consumption by 10% in developed countries
5.reduce indescriminate fishing
All the above will directly contribute for a cleaner and healthier climate.
V.S.Narayana, Andhra Pradesh, India

I have noticed that there is a concern about the production of CO2 and the economic effect of the shortage of oil. The price rise associated with the limiting oil reserves helps control the use of it as an energy source. But I am doing stage 1 chemistry and done limiting factors in chemical reactions. I am pleased that oxygen is one of the most abundant elements on the earth but note that there is decrease in O2 gas in the earths atmosphere. (The air with we breath.) This is essential for human life. I am pleased that in the long term there is a shortage of oil to burn because it is the limiting factor rather than oxygen in the atmosphere. We as humans have to find non oxygen gas burning forms of energy for our long term survival. The co2 tax will help as most oxygen burning hydrocarbons produce co2 so there is an incentive to find alternative sources of energy as well as the co2 climate effect. The large scale burning of oxygen (gas) as an energy source i think long term has to stop because it is being burnt as well as the hydrocarbons. I think fossil fuels will have to run out and then co2 production produced by burning fossil fuels will drop as well as the oxygen being burnt. As the human population increases on the earth we have to learn how to share an use its resources and i think oxygen is essential in the atmosphere is essential our survival Thanking you for concern on the planet.
Michael, New Zealand

Interesting to see CNN's latest eco-offering - but please - be more courageous - be true investigative journalists and ask the awkward questions by examining industrialised Europe's culpability for the climate crisis and show the many solutions being offered from Germany, Scandinavia etc. Let's see some real electric vehicles too........not City EV's with 40-50 miles/charge range......
You should take a look at the campaign website which alerted me to your programme which promotes fantastic long-range electric cars from all over the world, www.EVUK.co.uk
Derbhla McCormack, Cheltenham, England

We have now come to a turning point where we can either save our planet or not. We need to do much more to save the world from where we are now. In a small way I think we can contribute by way of planting trees all over the world may be in a predetermined day or week (eg. Christmas week having a target in mind, 5 million trees).
We need to do it in a large scale and even the governments, NGOs, institutes and even individuals can taken part of this project. If we can achieve this may be we will be able to inflict even a small change in our climate and let us try this out and see if this would be a success.
p.s.we need to do at least small things to make it happen.
Kanishka Perera, Sri Lanka

BOY, am I disappointed in Rachel Oliver's story at http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/10/01/solar.energy/. Did she ever not do her homework! No mention of concentrated solar power (CSP), which uses parabolic mirrors to concentrate the sun's rays on a tube containing a liquid, heating it to high temperatures; the energy in the hot fluid is ultimately used to power a turbine that generates electricity. If you go here, http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/2007/09/solar-nation--2.html you'll see the following quote:
"Mills and co-author Robert Morgan calculated that a 92-mile by 92-mile solar farm in the desert southwest could power the entire country."
That's only 21,668 square kilometers!
I've also seen an estimate that says if only 1/4 of the buildings and paved areas (I assume they meant parking lots) in the U.S. had photovoltaic panels installed, our electricity needs would be met.
How to store it? Plug-in hybrid cars (PHEVs) could help solve this problem (read Sherry Boschert's book, Plug-In Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America). The average American car is driven only three hours daily. The cars can be charged while the sun is shining, then at night feed power back into the grid from the charged batteries. GM's Volt is estimated to go on sale in 2010; other PHEVs may be available sooner.
A combination of solar and wind will also help, since the wind blows primarily at night.
So the title, "All About Solar" is laughable.
I was also disappointed that it was not possible to post comments on Oliver's story.
Vickie L. Wolfe, South Charleston, West Virginia, U.S

I and I suspect countless other professional and amateur environmentalists alike could sit down and within hours sketch out a policy for saving this planet, unless it is already too late. The answers are there. Just one: scour the globe for the best green power sites; build them, where ever they are with a plant attached for the production of hydrogen. Allow only hydrogen powered transportation, electric generation, heating etc. to continue. All it takes is political will. So, where is the will?
Ken Solway, Canada

  • E-mail
  • Save
  • Print