What our other readers have said:
Before shifting to alternatives, give clean combustion a chance
The most immediate benefit government can provide is to remove the restrictions on domestic oil production. Most of the current restrictions attempt to address environmental concerns that have, in fact, an extremely low potential of causing any real damage. The most immediate benefit for the developmental buck will come from the research and development of more efficient gas or diesel engines. Given the present state of the technology, it is unlikely we'll see any meaningful benefit from alternative energy sources for several decades.
George Warren, Warrenton, Ore., USA
From the top...
While individual, local, and regional efforts should be encouraged and applauded, only the national government has the power to engage in truly global solutions. A federal effort should set national standards while working in conjunction with the international community to fight global warming.
Abbey Swan, Washington, D.C., USA
Government regulation needed, but so is unselfishness
Governments should implement all sorts of tax deductions for items which save energy, including CFL light bulbs, green water heaters, LCD screens and LCD TVs, and other more ordinary products which encourage energy conservation.
It is really the job of citizens to stop being so selfish, but governments have the power to regulate businesses (which pollute massively, think of the trucking industry, boating industry, and aerospace industry). When a crisis hits our world, our government should respond, rather than feign ignorance while continuing to provide opportunities for record-breaking profit in the non-renewable energy sector.
John Clements, Newport, R.I., USA
Have we gotten the message yet?
I'm 55 years old this year and have been hearing about the "green house effect" since I was a child. My dad always yelled at us to turn off lights when we left a room to conserve energy costs. Movies like Soylent Green foretold of disasters to come if we did not take care of the environment. All the hoopla we hear today about global warming is another name for a rose. We have long known about these problems. Maybe we will now begin to act.
Luci Chambers, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Sustainable cities
We need to develop sustainable growth in our cities. Create cities that grow from within rather than on the edges. We need regional governance that provides incentives for redevelopment of existing footprints, modernization of that footprint, and creating places people want to live in. Create a culture of walking to work and shopping locally. Choice for people is imperative, whether a car or bike, a small bungalow or a condo with nearby amenities.
Andrew Wright, Burkburnett, Tex., USA
Time for a 'freedom speed'?
If the federal government were interested in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the president should authorize a maximum freedom speed — 55 mph. He/she should then create a context for compliance. Violation of the "freedom speed" is unpatriotic. From this starting point the federal government could get serious about CAFE standards, and public transportation.
State governments could impose fees on private commuter vehicles.
Alex Clark, Belchertown, Mass., USA
Back to 1914
After reading "Internal Combustion: How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Derailed the Alternatives" by Edwin Black, I am of the opinion that we should go back to 1914 when there were electric vehicles and trolleys in all the big cities of the US. Henry Ford and Thomas Edison were joined in a venture to promote electric transportation, and downplayed internal combustion vehicles. There are batteries capable of getting over 100 miles, and the idea of car companies "leasing" the battery pack would make the vehicles comparable in price to today's cars. Conversion kits, to turn cars into electric vehicles, are also available now. We got off on the wrong track in 1915, now we need to return.
Joanne Goode, Rydal, Ga., USA
Tax breaks for those who conserve?
The Federal Government must recognize that developing new energy alternatives, be they fission power or solar power, is a national security issue, and fund research into said alternatives accordingly. In the meantime, promoting energy conservation, and providing tax breaks for low energy-users will help to slow the process.
James Merrill, Redmond, Wash., USA
Over time, hydrocarbon energy costs more
Through taxes, grants, and other incentives make the economics of alternative energy development so attractive that it becomes the energy source of choice. One reason carbon-based energy sources are (initially) cheaper than other sources right now is that they have embedded infrastructure and technology which gives them an advantage. Once other energy technologies have similar infrastructure they'll be competitive.
Of course, if one tallied all of the ancillary costs of hydrocarbon energy such as pollution, environmental degradation due to extraction, noise...not to mention global warming, it's really no bargain at all.
As a bonus, we'll free ourselves from the compromising foreign policies & expenses associated with securing and importing oil from places we shouldn't be involved in.
Bob Deering, Juneau, Alaska, USA
Subsidize wind and solar, instead of coal
We need to give the same government incentives we give to the coal,
oil, and gas businesses to the construction of wind and solar plants. We also need to
start a Manhatten Project-type undertaking to develop energy storage systems to make wind and solar more viable as a base-line energy source.
Mike Marsh, W. Lafayette, Ind., USA
Remember Jimmy Carter's example
More emphasis needs to be placed on energy efficiency and especially energy conservation. Energy efficiency is replacing 10 incadescent light bulbs with compact fluorescents. Conservation is turning half of them off.
Goverment, religous and other leaders as well as the media need to promote conservation just as Jimmy Carter did 27 years ago.
Frank Zaski, Franklin, Mich., USA
'Tech rescues' just postpone facing reality
The core problem behind global warming is not energy consumption: people will use energy to some degree no matter how it is produced, and any technology will develop resource "bottlenecks" that will have drastic and unpredicatble effects on world energy supplies. Diverting farming from food to fuel production for ethanol is just one example, in other words how much land can we afford to set aside to feed cars rather than people? Who knows yet which minerals or resources will be strained if we all drive electric cars, or hydrogen powered cars? All resource depletion problems fundamentally call for aggressive international responses to human overpopulation. Purported technological rescues simply postpone our facing this reality.
This being said, I strongly support any measures that create more efficient cars, home heating, or industrial energy use. Tax gasoline more; compel auto makers to produce the American driver an efficient selection of cars from which to choose. Replanning urban life to encourage people to move back into the cities where they can benefit most from public transportation is also wise.
John Baumann, Spokane, Wash., USA
Follow Europe's lead
Making gasoline a luxury in Europe by adding a substantial tax that helps pay for alternative transportation (trains, buses, etc.) has been highly successful in discouraging driving from place to place for every little thing, while also encouraging more sustainable living areas. But the reason that a gas tax is fifth in your poll of 'solutions' is not because people don't think it would work as well as other options, it's because even in a non-binding opinion poll, Americans can't stomach the idea of expensive gasoline.
K. Knapp, Portland, Ore., USA
US can take the lead
All governments should be putting in place policies and taxes designed to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases. The US, leading in emission of greenhouse gases, should lead by example in promoting a decrease in those emissions. Other governments are likely to look more favorably on the process when the leading polluter shows a willingness to accept the economic costs and discomfort involved in a substantive effort.
Philip Murphy, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Six steps
1. Raise gasoline taxes. 2. Demand curbs on CO2 emissions from factories. 3. Discourage "disposable" product design. 4. Increase taxes on beef products. 5. Federal subsidies for alternative transportation. 6. Listen to and follow California's lead.
Gavin Holmes, Atlanta, Ga., USA
U-turn needed
Unfortunately this issue is too complex for politicians to use in a pro or con sense, hence the state we're in today. So leadership is necessary if we are to have any hope of deferring the very ugly decisions that will have to be made in order to preserve some version of the quality of the life we all currently plan to have. The irony is, we are not even happy living gluttonous lives. It is as though we have been asleep at the wheel of our SUVs while our government (i.e., Big Business) tells us that we need more, more. I pray to be surprised. If that SUV could just be small enough to do a U-Turn.
Scott Kyle, Richmond, Va., USA
Time to end the consumer age
We have to speed the end of the consumption age. I believe that my generation and the preceding one will go down in history as the most ecologically irresponsible generations ever. Technology may help the problem somewhat, but it will never teach us responsibility. The world simply cannot handle my solitary 45-minute commute in a car built for 5, followed by my fast food breakfast castoffs (styrofoam cup, plastic container, dyed paper bag), followed by my air-conditioned office where the lights and computers stay on all night, followed by my dinner of non-indigenous livestock (North America was never designed for cattle), to name only a few out of thousands of unsustainable habits that I share with my fellow Americans. In a capitalist system, the consumer decides how many new coal-burning plants will be built next year. And as consumers, we are begging for more and more pollution, more and more problems. In a postmodern world where God is dead and there is no order, no greater design and no absolutes, it becomes difficult to see that there really is a right way to be human and a wrong way to be human. With regards to the earth, we are doing it wrong. As a Christian nation, those among us who ascribe any truth or merit to the words of the Bible need to remember that one of God's first mandates to his created was to tend and care for the earth.
Adam Smit, Chicago, Ill., USA
Mandatory caps on emissions needed
The United States needs a nationwide strategy of MANDATORY caps on carbon emissions from transportation, industrial, and residential sources. Such a strategy has been developed by several national organizations (such as the Apollo Energy Project from US Dept. of Energy). The two most important ideas that political and business leaders need to communicate is that the human economy cannot be separated from the natural systems we are part of. Any serious nationwide strategy must be mandatory and include redirecting major investments in energy generation, high mileage cars, widespread use of smart growth planning for cities and transportation, and decentralized renewable energy systems. The best selling point is that many of these programs, investments, and plans generate jobs. Save the Planet? No, it's become time to Save The Humans.
John Crisley, Wakefield, Mass., USA
Any governmental effort would be a waste of time and energy
What a [sham]! (1) "Global Warming" has been going on since the mid 1600's when we reached the nadir of the "little ice age," and will likely go on for another one to three hundred years. (2) CO2 concentration follows climate, it doesn't lead it according to the geologic core sample record. (3) Mankind does not yet possess the technological ability to "fight" or control climate change. Silly efforts by politically correct governments or individuals will amount to nothing but a horrific waste of time, effort, money, and precious energy. That effort would be much better used to develop new sources of energy, which is badly needed! (4) Increased CO2 is a fantastic bonanza for agriculture and the forests of the world. I WANT global warming!
Robert Johnson, Gilroy, Calif., USA
Institute carbon-fuel allotments
Establish a per-capita allotment of carbon-based fuels, and reduce that allotment each year until national carbon-fuel consumption is down to 1950 levels. A "carbon tax" is unfair to the poor, as the rich will still be able to continue their polluting lifestyles. Those who do not use their allotment would be free to sell their remaining allotment to the highest bidder. This would provide an financial incentive for conservation, so overall consumption would fall quickly. We can build windmills and biofuel refineries until the cows come home, but none of that will mean anything unless and until we can dramatically reduce our consumption.
Obbie King, La Crosse, Wis., USA
Some suggestions for governments and citizens
The need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is imperative. Governments should ... fund research into renewable energy sources that are viable alternatives for transportation, domestic, and industrial use. Solar energy is an area that could really transform the concept of energy especially in tropical areas. More emphasis on use of battery vehicles or those running on hydrogen need to be brought in.
However, the citizen also has a responsibility. Walking or bicycling whenever required should be seen as cool rather than outlandish. Sharing of vehicles or using smaller vehicles ... is also another area. And of course the most basic requirement – turn of the switch when not in use!
Avi Sabavala, Baroda, Gujarat, India
Three ways the government can make a difference
1. Lead by example. The federal government needs to reduce carbon emissions far below Kyoto levels ahead of schedule, raise automobile emissions standards, create a federal carbon tax, and rationalize energy subsidies until renewable energy and efficiency are as well-funded by the government as are nuclear, coal, and hydro.
2. Use carrots rather than sticks. Offer rewards, contests, and fellowships to the general public for clever ways to institute No. 1, as well as personal global warming solutions.
3. Bring our businesses into the black by going green. American businesses are losing their competitive edge through wastefulness, increased insurance costs, and the loss of public confidence. Federal and state business incentives to combat global warming can help American businesses overcome all three challenges.
Barbara Leiterman, New York, N.Y., USA
Restrict trade
A cap and trade system would offer a significant incentive to research alternative technology, therefore lessening the amount of gases emitted into the atmosphere. We must be observant about locations that produce lots of really harmful elements such as mercury, and implement restrictions on trading that will not allow high concentrations in small areas.
Corey Stelling, Missoula, Mont., USA
Foster open dialogue between governments and scientists
First, the governments need to foster open, honest dialogue within the scientific world. It doesn't seem to be clear whether global warming is largely due to man's influence or not. The Earth has been undergoing major temperature changes for millions of years without man. There are a lot of factors that contribute to global warming, and to the build-up of greenhouse gases. Keep the debate open so scientists are free to look at this issue from a non-political viewpoint.
Second, keep the economy strong so we will have the ability to make any necessary adjustments that might be needed due to warming. The poorest nations will have the least ability to cope with any major changes.
Tom Hutchin, Pottstown, Pa., USA
How much energy consumption are we willing to sacrifice?
Education might help. According to author Michael Pollan (Omnivore's Dilemma), our food production and distribution methods require about seven calories of energy for a production of one calorie of food.
According to almost any physicist, moving an object at a high rate of speed requires more energy than moving that object at a moderate rate of speed. Automobiles are routinely driven at 75, 80, or even 85 mph on US interstate highways, and tractor-trailers run petal-to-the-metal. Fly over many areas of the United States at night you see a lighted world, energy consuming. Would southern US cities thrive without air conditioning? Would northern US cities survive without heat?
How much more energy do we consume (in the US) than we would consume if we had to rely only on human energy? I think that the answer is a staggering amount. Wealth is a result of energy consumption. Look at areas of the world that do not consume much energy and you will find poverty or a very simple life style.
What price (or sacrifice) are you and I willing to pay to limit "global warming"?
Jack Stevenson, Whitley City, Ky., USA
Institute carbon taxes
The most direct and likely most efficient policy prescription governments can enact are carbon taxes. Of course it's not politically easy everywhere, but likely a winner. Why? It still allows the free market to determine how best to cut emissions. There's no question that real taxes – not just on petrol, but all fossil fuels – will produce incentives to reduce consumption. It will also provide incentive for innovation. In the current framework, the question is always whether an alternative energy will be cost-effective. If companies and people know roughly what the price of energy will be they can plan and invest accordingly. This could be done very effectively by creating 'variable taxes' that roughly fix the price of fossil fuels by the year. Thus the tax in 2008 could be whatever's necessary to fix the price of gas at $3.50, then $4 in 2009, etc. The income tax could be lowered each year to compensate.
Daniel Gottlieb, White River Jct, Vt., USA
