Mail Call: Green-Challenged

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