Bill McKibben, Brighter Planet friend and advisor extraordinaire, is back to answer your questions. Remember, if you’d like to ask Bill a question of your own, send it to askbill AT brighterplanet DOT com. We look forward to featuring your questions in upcoming editions!

And if you missed the first edition, check it out.

I think many people would like to have an auto that emits minimal pollutants and I see that Tesla Motors has come out with an auto like this…but it’s $60,000. Way out of the range of the average consumer. This is such a frustrating situation. It’s the same with adding solar to one’s home. The price is such that many people will not even consider it or actually afford it. What can we do to bring about a situation where your average person can afford these devices that will make the world better for all of us?

Rita Childers, Kenab, Utah

Happily, there’s nothing most of us need that costs $60 grand. If you can financially buy a new car, then buy a small hybrid; if you can’t, then work to limit trips and take advantage of public transit. But here’s the really good news: getting politically involved doesn’t cost anything. And if we can win the battles at the highest levels that we’re righting at 350.org, then all of a sudden you’ll find many more choices for each of us in our daily lives.

In your view, what would you say the role of spirituality, especially that of organized Christianity, if any, us in curbing climate change & enhancing sustainability?

Matt Young, St. Lawrence ‘09

I’d say it’s one of the most important developments in the last few years that organized religion seems finally to have joined in this fight. I’m particularly glad that evangelical Christians have broken sharply with the Bush administration orthodoxy and begun putting real political pressure on Washington for a solution. Look — religious institutions are among the last forces in our society that can still posit some reason other than material accumulation for human existence. They are therefore potentially highly subversive. Let’s hope they live up to that Gospel imperative.

Most recommendations to reduce global warming ignore a vital component: meat. The bloody business of meat is greatly implicated in the production of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, the three leading greenhouse gases.

How can we get to 350, or lower, without sharply reducing meat production and consumption, given that the livestock industry produces more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation industry?

Dan Brook, Sociology Dept San Jose State University

I don’t think we can get to 350 with the whole world eating an American diet, heavy in grain-fed beef. We need real changes in diet in the rich world (because we also can’t afford the heath consequences of eating like we do). But replacing factory beef with factory soybeans isn’t the answer, and actually does less for greenhouse emissions than you’d think. We need to head in the direction of local agriculture, and of treating meat, if we eat it at all, the way most of the world’s cuisines do — as a flavor, not a big honking slab.