1) In your view, how serious a threat is global warming to our planet?

Global warming is a very serious threat, less to the planet itself than to we humans and the other creatures that inhabit it. One of the arguments put forth by people who say we don't need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is that Earth has gone through many extreme climate changes in its history and will again. While that's true, what they fail to mention is that the living was never easy during those times. It won't be easy this time, either. Rising sea levels will displace millions of people, turning them into environmental refugees. Left unchecked, global warming will also cause severe food and water shortages and increase the incidence of infectious diseases.

During periods of extreme cold in the past, ice covered much of the land surface; during periods of extreme heat, the sea level was so high that South Dakota was beachfront property and the areas where most of the world's people now live were underwater. On top of that, no other period of extreme climate change has occurred when there was an entrenched population of more than 6 billion people dependent on global power, communication and transportation networks, and whose net worth and very survival were so firmly bound to the land.

The other difference, of course, is that the current warming trend is being driven primarily by human activity. As a result, we can do something about it. So instead of just bracing ourselves to cope with the effects of global warming, we have a chance to prevent the worst of them. Yet, while the threat of global warming becomes more serious and urgent with each passing year, we are actually doing very little to address it.

2) Is global warming the worst environmental threat we're currently facing?

Actually, no. The most serious threat to the environment is population growth, because the number of people our planet must support has a direct impact on every part of the environment. Earth is a closed system with only so many resources. The more people who live here, the fewer resources there are to go around.

Right now, about six billion people live on Earth. By 2050, even the most conservative estimates say that the global population will be around 9 billion. Most of that growth will be in developing nations, much of it in cities. People in those countries are looking at the lifestyle enjoyed by people in the United States and other developed countries—and they want it. But with nine billion people all clamoring for the good life, we would need at least three planets like ours to provide enough resources to support them. No matter how you look at it, that's an unsustainable situation. Something has to change—and soon.

3) In what ways can we minimize our carbon footprint to preserve the environment?

Start by making a few changes to your lifestyle so that you consume less energy and account for fewer greenhouse gas emissions as you go through your day. Living a more eco-friendly lifestyle is a lot like starting an exercise program. It's best to start small, and make changes you feel good about and can maintain even when they feel a little challenging. Then build on those successes to do more.

You may choose to walk, bike, carpool or take public transportation to cut down on the number of trips you take alone in your car, for example, or you may decide to give up your car altogether if you live in a place where that is a practical choice. How much you do at each stage is up to you.

You can also reduce your family's energy consumption in many other ways—from using less hot water to unplugging appliances when they're not in use and replacing incandescent light bulbs with CFL or LED lights. After you've done a few of these things, you can start thinking about how far food has to travel to reach your table, and how many of the products you purchase regularly are made with recycled material or can be recycled themselves.

Fortunately, living green doesn't have to feel like a big sacrifice.

As an added bonus, many green lifestyle choices even come with health and financial benefits. According to a study by the American Public Transportation Association, for example, families that use public transportation can reduce their household expenses by $6,200 annually, more than the average U.S. household spends on food every year. Those savings are bound to grow as auto fuel and maintenance costs continue to increase. And getting out of your car more often will help you live a longer and healthier life.

4) How effective a solution is recycling material in preserving the environment?

Recycling is an important part of a comprehensive environmental strategy. The two criticisms sometimes aimed at recycling are that it consumes too much energy or that it costs too much. Both criticisms are outdated and neither really holds up long-term.

Recycling and reprocessing resources that have been used before requires far less energy than harvesting, processing and transporting virgin resources, and does far less damage to the environment. As for cost, that is largely a matter of economics related to market demand. Now that consumers are demanding more goods made with recycled material, the market for recycled resources is growing. As result, recycling is becoming more profitable and the cost of recycling is coming down.

By recycling materials that have already been used, you accomplish several things that greatly benefit the environment:

• Keep material that could be recycled out of landfills

• Preserve virgin resources until they are really needed

• Create a more sustainable world

Despite those benefits, recycling is only one of the three R's of conservation. The other two are reduce and reuse. The best way to preserve resources and care for the environment is to use less energy and fewer resources in the first place, and to reuse as much as you can before turning to something new.

5) Is the Western world, especially the United States, doing enough to lead in the preservation efforts of our planet and the environment?

Not even close. Here in the United States, we use more energy and other resources per capita than any other nation on Earth and we generate roughly 25 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Yet, we are home to only about five percent of the global population.

Congress is polarized over many of our most important environmental issues, making it difficult to generate the political power necessary bring about effective solutions. Many U.S. businesses are taking unilateral action, or joining with other companies to form coalitions focused on creating a cleaner and greener economy, but many environmental problems are global and require international cooperation and commitment on a grand scale.

The United States and other developed nations should be leading that effort by example, but for the most part that simply isn't happening yet.

6) What can the average person do to help in preserving the environment?

In the face of complex global problems such as climate change and overpopulation, it's easy to feel overwhelmed and powerless, and to find ourselves asking, “What difference can one person make?” I believe one person can make all the difference in the world.

Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world." There is great power in that idea of living the solution you want to achieve and influencing others by your example. So adopt a greener lifestyle, and do business with companies that respect the environment while encouraging others to change. Share your priorities with your elected representatives, urge them to take action, and let them know you'll be watching to see what they do. And join forces with like-minded people who share your values.

There's another great quote from anthropologist Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

You can read more about my views on this at

http://environment.about.com/od/environmentalevents/a/earth_day_commit.htm.

7) Are children sufficiently informed about the importance of preserving the environment at all grades in school?

It's hard to imagine anything more fundamental to a child's education than understanding their world and knowing how to keep it working well for themselves and future generations. Reading might qualify, but that's about it. Yet, ironically, environmental education is usually relegated to the sidelines of school curricula, or left out altogether.

A series of "environmental literacy" studies in the late 1980s showed that American schoolchildren lacked basic knowledge about the natural environment and persuaded Congress to take action. In 1990, Congress passed the National Environmental Education Act, which instructed the EPA to expand and strengthen environmental education nationwide by training teachers and making grants to help finance promising initiatives. What Congress failed to do, then and now, was to provide enough funding to accomplish those goals.

Many educators and lawmakers recognize the importance of environmental education, and various states, school districts, and even individual schools are continuing to work on the problem. In early 2010, for example, the California Board of Education signed off on most of an 85-section K-12 curriculum that integrates environmental education into science, history and social science classes and is designed to meet and fulfill state academic standards.