Is this guy for real? We have Climate Change going on, not Global Warming. And Sanders thinks we're going to reverse a meteorological dynamic that has been going on for tens of thousands of years? I would agree that we're going to transition from oil-based energy to something else; that is a no-brainer. Oil is getting more expensive, so let's let the economics happen.

I, for one, am not going to stop using more energy--I will use more of it. If the Senator wants to go back a hundred years, to when we went to bed at dusk, let him. I will be living well during the evening hours.

Bill Sanford

Zeeland, MI

Before everyone tries to stop "global warming" don't you think it would be prudent to know what is an ideal temperature for the earth? We have reasonable records for only the last century and a half, so how do we know if warmer or colder is good or bad? And is CO&sub2; the cause of warming or the result of it? We don't even know that. There have been times in the history of the earth when the CO&sub2; levels were hundreds of times higher than today, and they were some of the coldest periods in earth's history, based on paleoclimatology findings. There are just too many unknowns and too many people spreading unfounded fears and predictions of gloom and doom when we don't even know the basics. The polar ice cap is melting, but the Antarctic ice layer is increasing, and NASA now says that the melting of the polar ice caps is the result of changes in ocean currents, which is a decadal event. And as the glaciers retreat they're revealing traces of civilizations long forgotten. So, obviously, it was warmer at some period in the past, got colder and now it's warming again. What's ideal? Now... back then before those early settlements were covered by glaciers... what? No one knows. So why all the hysteria? Just because a man not trained in science, not trained in anything, really, except spreading his own self-importance, wrote a fictional book and suckered a lot of people into getting all excited. Kind of reminds me of the Salem witch trials.

Ed Hornyak

Cartersville, GA

Perhaps Bernie should start by telling tourists to stop driving and flying into Vermont to ski and see the colors change. Sure, it would cost tons of jobs (including yours), but you have to start somewhere. Put your money where your mouth is, Bernie.

Ed Conway

Chicago, IL

You cannot balance the tires on a cow, change the lightbulbs on a pig or put solar panels on a chicken.

I wish some of these proposals to halt global warming would address the single most salient factor that literally threatens to doom human civilization as we know it: the reckless, wasteful and massively-subsidized propagation and exploitation of several species of life forms ("food animals") by one single life form (homo sapiens), in a way that is largely unnecessary.

The single biggest energy-inefficient act is something most of us do three times a day. Instead of getting our energy directly from plants (you know what those are, right?), we waste most of the energy in a system that makes big corporations richer, little kids more obese and poor nations poorer.

I wish some candidate would run on the slogan: "It's the animals, stupid." The recent United Nations FAO report on the impact of livestock on the planet attaches some scientifically researched statistics to a reality that anyone can figure out with a tiny bit of brainpower: the average American is going to consume 7,000 animals in his or her life time, not to mention the vast quantities of dairy and other animal products we consume. These sentient beings (born into families, confined, made to suffer unnecessarily and slaughtered for our "happy meals") consume vast quantities of natural resources through both direct and indirect consumption, transportation, and result in the pollution and destruction of entire ecological systems.

But, you ask, how important could this factor be? It's just breakfast, lunch, dinner, ice cream, candy bars, our shoes, leather coats, belts, guitar strap, iPod case, etc. I mean, it's just food, right? Just food. Heck, animals can't be THAT important, can they? (There's only a few trillion of them.)

Yet no one in the mainstream global warming debate, including Senator Sanders, and certainly least of all Al Gore (blowing the opportunity of the century to really advocate change), seems to be addressing this rather large elephant standing and pooping and farting in the middle of the living room called Planet Earth. They don't even mention it! Like it's a small issue. Like it's not so global that our bodies (inside and out) are literally coated in the results of this single biggest form of "commerce"! (Try this: If you are an adult, try to go a single month without consuming anything not utilizing dairy products. Just try it. If you're in the West, you'll quickly find you live on Planet Cow, not Planet Earth.)

Senator Sanders' bill seems really nifty to me. It would be a wonderful bill if Planet Earth were only inhabited by a mere 6 billion humans. But what is anyone going to do about the trillions of nonhuman animals whose "production" (i.e., breeding, confinement, transport, slaughter) is producing more greenhouse gases than any other single anthropogenic activity?

But I know why it's not being taken seriously. Because, really, when it comes down to it, Big Oil is a tiny little runt compared to Big Meat (which is basically everyone--we are all meatheads). I can only imagine the kind of political pressure that would be put on the one political bigwig to say "it's the animals, stupid," and go head-to-head with Big Meat.

I mean, imagine this competition: two American parents versus the needs of McDonald's. Two American parents have a healthy young child who needs nutritious food and water to grow into a healthy adult. Now, McDonald's has cattle that also need food and water to grow into adulthood (albeit, a rather short-lived adulthood). Which participant in this contest has the greater resources to guarantee its supply of grain, soil and water to meet its goals? Do you really think McDonald's is going to sacrifice its cattle's needs for your child? Think McD's is going to say, "We best cut down on pig and cow production so kids can drink clean water and get nutrition directly from a plant-based diet, as humans did mainly for millions of years?" Dream on.

McDonald's will indeed balance its tires, change its lightbulbs and invest in solar panels. No problem!!! "We're loving it!"

Speaking of legislation that might save us from global warming, there's a new diet book out called Skinny Bitch. NYT bestseller and all that. Written by a supermodel/nutritionist and her agent. If either of these women--Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin--ran for President right now, they'd have my vote. Now, if some Nobel Peace Prize Winner-To-Be could rewrite Skinny Bitch into a global warming bill, then we'd finally be talking.

(Oh, yeah, and there's that other small thing: Er, basic compassion and decency towards sentient beings who want to live, and be free from suffering just as much as we do.)

Let's wake up to reality: Without recognizing the single most destructive inefficiency on the planet--the human diet--Senator Sanders' bill is like flying a paper airplane into the Sun.

Christopher Barden
Vegan Social Club of Beijing

Beijing, China

One aspect of the necessary change to accomplish this in meaningful fashion is an educated populace, in order to make rational, informed decisions--part of what I do here in the Environmental Science classes I teach.

However, the other aspect of change is not just efficient production and distribution of energy, but the weaning off of so much energy consumption in our nation. This, I think, will be much harder. We in the US are so used to using such a disproportionate share of the planet's resources, that to "downgrade" to a leaner lifestyle is tantamount to heresy.

Daniel Vaughn

Vincennes, IN

Really. How very nice that Senator Bernie Sanders says "we can save the Earth."

Trouble is, if you look back to the last major Congressional transportation vote, the SAFETEA-LU bill of 2005, you'll find that, despite its stunningly insane further relative demotion of public transportation in favor of the private automobile, it passed by a combined vote of 503-to-12--and all twelve of the nays were cast by ultra-rightists grandstanding their alleged hatred of government spending!

Despite Peak Oil, despite the Iraq War, and despite the climate change he says he's taking seriously, in 2005, Mr. Sanders neither spoke out nor voted against the utterly scandalous SAFETEA-LU bill. Neither did one single Democrat. Not one.

How about some real truth and leadership, Bernie? This is our species' make-or-break century, and it would be nice if somebody started trying to end the double-talk and denial that is greasing the rails running toward collapse and chaos. Will it be you?

Michael Dawson
www.consumertrap.com

Portand, OR