Our cover story on green initiatives by world leaders didn't assuage fears for the environment. One reader lamented the "fraction of American voters who cite the environment as an issue." Another chided politicians for looking for "a quick fix." A third called for policymakers to "lead by example."

Reforming the Planet
Regardless of who is elected president of the United States in November, the leading candidates all seem to be putting the hybrid cart before the horse ("Just the Tree of Us," May 5). With less than a third of American voters citing the environment as an issue they care about, we need to educate the public more effectively about the seriousness of environmental concerns before we can hope to effect any consequential change. Only then will the White House be able to promote a transformative energy plan.
Dennis B. Appleton
Madison, Wisconsin

Though both presidential candidates claim that they are actively trying to solve our worsening environmental predicament, I wonder if either will actually keep his promise when elected. Every four years in the United States, the environment is put on the legislative back burner because no one at the national level can agree on a policy that would suit our country. Ethanol has risen and fallen as a possible solution to our fossil-fuel-emissions crisis, and yet few leaders seem to be actively pursuing alternative measures. Politicians seem too easily discouraged by the fact that the environment is not a quick fix. It will be interesting to see just how much America's environmental policies change (or not) after the 2008 election.
Katie Nelson
Berkeley, California

Here's a suggestion for u.s. leaders —the president, members of the Senate and Congress, cabinet officials. Why don't you all agree to lead by example? Take an energy audit of your homes and offices in 2008. Compare your personal and office energy use in 2009 with that in 2008. Release these energy audits to the public on an annual basis. Let's see which of our elected officials actually practices what he or she preaches. Elected officials and key appointees currently release ethics and financial data to the public. Why not also report personal energy-usage data?
Paul Feiner,Town Supervisor
Greenburgh, New York

The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deniers and skeptics Al Gore refers to do not deny global warming or climate change. The world is indeed warming, and the climate is changing. What is not certain is the extent to which people are responsible. The warming started long ago, and the connection to human activity has not been empirically established. Gore did indeed win the Nobel Prize, but for peace, not for the scientific accuracy of his movie. It was strictly a political award. AGW skeptics are not necessarily against conservation, pollution reduction, recycling, stopping deforestation or any other green ideas. What is worrisome is that a great deal of money and time will be spent trying to stop something that can't be stopped. The seas and temperatures were higher 5,000 years ago, long before people could have had any impact. The climate change we see today falls well within normal variation.
Carl Fetterman
Morganton, North Carolina

The 6 Billion People Problem
We seem to have lots of plans and ideas to conserve, recycle and sustain ("The New Green Leaders," May 5). Unfortunately, while a few people from the rich world will do so, not all will. On the other side of the spectrum, the Chinese, the Indians and a multitude of others want to have their cars, air conditioners and four-door refrigerators, too. And why shouldn't they? What right do the rich—who plundered the earth's natural resources to get rich—have to preach to the Third World? What happened to their jungles? Who caught all the whales? The current trend will not work. The only solution—which is to control the burgeoning world population—seems to be a topic not many want to discuss. If the rich would spend just one year's worth of funds presently used to wage wars (in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) to reverse the trend of environmental damage, it would be sufficient to get the message across to the rest of the world and have results. Why are we not doing it? Is it because the First and Second worlds are in collaboration with multinationals that have a vested interest in allowing the population to increase so that there is a ready market for their products?
Adam Manik
Male, Republic Of Maldives

In "10 Fixes for the Planet" (May 5), Anne Underwood lists some truly fascinating ways to help save the environment. However, the most obvious and pressing solution is nowhere to be found. There are simply too many people on our small planet, and nothing we do—300mpg cars, fluorescent light bulbs, recycling—can ultimately save us. When will somebody step up and say what's obvious? Our civilization is doomed if we allow the population to continue to grow unchecked.
William Schiffmann
Lago Vista, Texas

I was surprised to see your feature article "The New Green Leaders" illustrated with a golf course on the facing page. Golf courses are the most environmentally unfriendly sporting venues, needing huge volumes of water to keep the grass green. Water is the scarcest resource we have on our planet. If we are to be truly green, water conservation is the first step.
Rick Hsu
Taipei, Taiwan

What McCain Might Get Away With
John Mccain's Los Angeles foreign-policy speech excluding and alienating Russia and China belies a statesman's diplomatic approach to world issues ("McCain vs. McCain," May 5). If anything, the speech solidified the neoconservative influence on his campaign. These are the same folks who crafted and directed the ill-fated war of no end in Iraq. Their big guns are now trained on Iran, while they keep an eye on a restoration of the cold war. What we need is a justification for a military budget that exceeds the combined spending of other prominent nations. One would think that we were at war with the rest of the world.
Joseph Borrajo
Dearborn, Michigan

Africa in Black and White
I would like to know where the writers of "Liberate Us From the Liberators" in the May 5 issue got their information. I keep trying to think of when Robert Mugabe actually turned Zimbabwe into one of the most agriculturally productive countries in Africa—or, for that matter, one of the most stable. I can't, because it never happened. Zimbabwe was a food-exporting country for only 10 years after it overthrew white-minority rule. Only under the old regime was Zimbabwe ever the food cradle of Africa.Ten years after Rhodesia fell, Zimbabwe became a net food importer. Many white settlers left the country after being forced off the land, and after blacks were given preferential treatment for jobs, regardless of ability. When are we going to read some balanced coverage from the Western media about all of this? When it comes to racial tension between blacks and whites, the media tend to favor blacks, because doing otherwise could be construed as racist. So the press largely refrains from criticizing a dysfunctional government like Mugabe's. Western coverage of South Africa has the same problem. You don't read that Jacob Zuma, president of the governing party there, threw white journalists out of a press conference, supposedly because the meeting didn't concern whites. No one seems to care that South Africa is slowly returning to an apartheid system, with blacks possessing an advantage over whites. Nor is attention being paid to the crimes perpetrated in that country. When are we going to get the whole picture from the media?
Nicolaj Segato Pedersen
Randers, Denmark

Bringing Back India ' s Tigers
The effort by NEWSWEEK to highlight the threat faced by tigers in India will be appreciated by all ("India's Missing Tigers," May 5). The pressure on the big cat from the surrounding human habitation is on the rise. Reports about poaching are also mounting alarmingly. Selfless service by those responsible for protecting the wildcat is the need of the hour. Unfortunately, the number of such officials is minimal. Even though the government has spent millions of dollars on Project Tiger, present results are not at all encouraging. Coordinated efforts between India, Nepal and China are needed to check transnational trade of the endangered animal. If wholehearted efforts aren't taken before it's too late, the picture of a royal Bengal tiger prowling in the Indian wild will disappear forever.
Salin Thomas
Karukachal, India

Torture and the High Life
I find it difficult to reconcile the "Snapshots of Horror" article in the May 5 issue with the frivolous articles in The Good Life on the following page. All that luxury cannot wipe away the horrific treatment of prisoners on the part of people who represent the United States. As a dual Mexican-American citizen, I feel it makes me lose the respect and love I had for my country, the United States of America.
Susana Perez
Mexico City, Mexico

Snakeskin: Selling Our Conscience
Again, I am so saddened to see how designers violate the use of endangered species and how NEWSWEEK helps them promote it ("Tempted by the Serpent," May 5). Magazines and newspapers should take a more responsible approach and not promote unethical items. Some snakes are on the endangered list today, and even going through international customs with a pair of python shoes might leave one shoeless, as they will be confiscated (and rightly so). As they say, when the buying stops, the killing will as well. So when the promoting stops, the buying will as well.
Eva Malmstrom Shivdasani
Bangkok, Thailand

The Unelectable Pope
The author of "Why This Pope Doesn't Connect" (April 21/April 28) states that Benedict XVI pales in contrast to his predecessor in a number of respects including "looks, vitality, charisma, showmanship, tenure and popular appeal." Is she referring to the head of the Roman Catholic Church or the lead in a high-school rock band? Surely these specific characteristics are of scant importance in a person leading the largest Christian denomination on the planet. She goes on to state that certain other elements make him unsuitable or unpopular (in the United States) as an ideal pope, including his "unfortunate visage," his predilection for traditional papal fashion and the fact that he served as John Paul's "theological enforcer." Again, one can only wonder why the author would deem these features important in determining Benedict's acceptance among Roman Catholics. Surely his religious devotion, intelligence and peculiar application of church dogma would be of far greater interest. The article further opines that the church operates in a "chaotic world" and then ends by saying that American Catholics understand that they will not be satisfied in their desire for the church to change. It does leave one wondering whether the world would not be less chaotic if it were less American and more in line with church teaching.
Johan Marnewick
Johannesburg, South Africa

What Lisa Miller misses in "Why This Pope Doesn't Connect" is a common misperception about Roman Catholicism: that our pope is supposed to represent us. How could a billion believers with different cultures, languages and perspectives have as their head someone who "connects" with all? Rather, we trust that God gives us the pope we need for the times. The pope is meant to be more of an instrument of God to challenge and inspire instead of a leader in the sense Americans know. Perhaps Benedict's de-emphasis of "feelings" in his persona or message is actually a positive point to be pondered.
Brittany Doucette
Indianapolis, Indiana

George Weigel's "How Benedict XVI Will Make History" (April 21/April 28) is worthy of becoming a historic piece of journalism. I am not a Roman Catholic, and do not understand many of the church's traditions. Nor do I condone the transgressions of morally reprehensible priests. However, the figure of the pope does retain great moral authority. Pope Benedict's predecessor played a huge role in the fall of communism. Benedict, as Weigel astutely notes, "is thinking in centuries here." This pope is using all the moral authority at his disposal to reach across lines of historic division and show that Muslims can and should be welcome in a world of peaceful coexistence where freedom of faith becomes the cornerstone in a world of lasting peace.
Dale Ledbetter
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

Ethiopia: Death by Traffic
The carnage on Ethiopia's rural roads depicted in "The Overlooked Killer" (April 14) is just one of the shocking byproducts of the country's abject poverty, after malnutrition and lack of access to health care and sanitation. The key factors your article missed are the unavailability of affordable spare parts for large vehicles and lax mechanical-safety standards. Last week, on a 100km stretch between Harer and Asebe Teferi, on the main road to Addis Ababa, we saw five recently crashed trucks, two of which had come to a standstill on their roofs. In the judgment of our Ethiopian colleagues, bald tires and brake failure are an even greater contributor to these incidents than driver error, chat misuse and the ubiquitous livestock on the road. The truck drivers you see meandering on the mountainous roads at a snail's pace are only too aware of their perilous machinery and are, in the all-too-likely event of malfunction, simply giving themselves a fighting chance of swerving around an obstacle and leaping out of the cab at the last instant. We could not do our health-outreach work without the new Chinese-built roads, but we are deeply concerned about our projects while the roads—and, specifically, the largest vehicles on them—are so dangerous for our staff and patients. I fear it will take more than better seat-belt usage and speeding tickets to solve the problems on Ethiopia's open roads.
Jonathan Crown
London, England

I could scarcely believe that traffic accidents in Africa are a leading cause of death. In the news, one always hears about other problems, like AIDS. You seem to think that old cars are the issue, but I believe that tired or drunk drivers and those driving without seat belts are a greater problem. The number of accidents and their causes should be much more publicized.
Eva-Maria Binder
Via Internet

The New Colorless Art
When I read "A Room With a Hue" (March 10), I asked myself: what happened to real, open-minded art reviewers? The article laments that new artists are not using color as much as earlier generations of artists did. But how important is color anyway? What matters in art are two things. The art must give a feeling to the viewer, and it must speak to the conscience and to social change. When certain artists do use color, they are doing so not to give a particular feeling to their painting but only for esthetic effect—to make the piece look good. For example, Romero Brito, the Brazilian artist who made, among other works, an image for a supermarket, uses a lot of color, but his paintings have no feeling; they are hollow. The objective of this kind of painting, in my point of view, is to be sold to wealthy people looking to decorate their living rooms. On the other hand, there are many artists who do not care if their art doesn't look pretty or if there is an absence of color. They prefer to evoke feelings, rather than create something pleasing to the eye. These artists are often rejected because viewers think art should be "pretty." What kind of viewers are those? Can't they look at the meaning of the pieces of art?
Nuri Rubin Melgarejo
Mexico City, Mexico

Old Stories, New Format
Your March 31 article "Everything Is Illuminated" shows the latest in the trend to make classic works of literature more accessible. Thanks to Classics Illustrated, I first became acquainted with works like "The Iliad," "Frankenstein" and "Moby-Dick." I read the books themselves later, in college. Now these masterpieces can be listened to on CDs. Whether literature is for the eye, the mind or the ear, it remains entertaining and vital from generation to generation.
Michael G. Driver
Ichihara City, Japan

Putting Your Genes to the Test
Sharon Begley's "A New Reason to Frown" (April 21/April 28) was excellent and pointed out a very important but oft-ignored problem: animals cannot predict human response. Be it Botox or Vioxx, different species respond differently. Even human response varies: a drug that cures you may kill me, and vice versa. The only way society will have safer and more effective medications is if we conduct testing based on a person's genetic makeup. Not the genetic makeup of your mother or even your identical twin, but yours alone. Fortunately, this is the direction pharmaceutical companies are taking. It is time to re-evaluate the scientific validity of using animals to gauge human response in medical research and testing.
Ray Greek, M.D.
Science Adviser
National Anti-Vivisection Society
Chicago, Illinois

Correction
In the "Popular Shots" graphic accompanying "A New Reason to Frown," we reversed meanings and should have said that an eyelid spasm is called blepharospasm, and lazy eye is strabismus.

Town Supervisor