Expecting consumers to “get it” and self-educate is unrealistic. Yes, this smacks of intellectual elitism, something I deplore and something that infects, along with far too much egocentrism, the sustainability movement. However, it’s a fair assessment. People won’t “get it” unless people are presented with heavy doses of imminent reality. We keep sugar-coating things or proffering up ineffectual partisan viewpoints that alienate a neat fifty percent slice of the population. We idolize “leaders” who, given the chance and the mandate, did nothing (Clinton/Gore Kyoto debacle, anyone?).

I live in the ‘wine country’ of Northern California – a hyper-liberal segment of a fairly liberal state. While NIMBY-ism is horrifically prevalent, working to offset much of the liberalism, I still recognize that the people around me are far from indicative of the wider U.S. population – for better and worse. They “get it” but they don’t understand that giant steps are needed. To them, shopping at Whole Foods, driving a Prius (worse mileage than a 1995 Geo Metro, btw) and yakking into a RED Motorola Razr(tm) represent ethical and righteous living. Don’t get me wrong, eating right and driving efficiently are wonderful and to be emulated, but they represent the smallest of baby steps in a time when we all need to strap on seven-league boots. Bono, too, understands the situation, and works on many levels to raise awareness, but in my opinion the RED campaign has been something of a tactical error.

From Lovelock, Monbiot and Lester Brown, to Elizabeth Kolbert, the brightest minds and best writers are attempting to wrangle the bullhorn away from the politicians and celebrities so that they might scream that, well, the sky really is falling, but they’re finding the stranglehold on the public’s attention is not so easy to loose.

We are, at present, a leaderless movement, which presents opportunities and challenges. It is fantastic that sites like Eco Chick ask questions like this – questions that almost buck the developing, calcifying status quo that is already derailing our movement. We must, collectively, maintain our edge and refuse to follow any set ideology or pledge any political allegiances. We are too easily co-opted, our message too easily flipped into a marketing campaign. We’ve been here before. This all happened in the early 1990s, remember? The Stern Report is merely a rehashing of the 1991 IPCC report that set Europe marching while the U.S. citizenry merely took the reports of global warming as an opportunity to sell coffee and shoes. Anyone familiar with the genius output of John C. Lilly knows we humans operate in loops and cycles – it’s in the breaking free of them that we advance, personally and culturally.

I see our movement looping already. We’ve gone from a selfless focus on the environment to a selfish focus on eco-economics. Youthful idealism (a wisdom most pure) morphs into a desire for personal security. This grasping, this me-ness, is not a bad thing – it is, after all, human nature. Yet, I can’t help but wonder if we can’t strike a better balance. Everywhere I go, idealism is smashed, ridiculed and ignored. Giant, rapid strides? Not possible. (Happened in WW2 when the U.S. gov’t took over manufacturing, offering subsidies to major manufacturers to transition to troop supplies) A third party that focuses on the environment? Unrealistic and juvenile. (Happened here in the U.S., resulting in social security, minimum wage, unemployment benefits, child-labor reform, welfare – basically our nation’s backbone). Keep a close eye out next time you scan the eco-sphere – you’ll notice the idealism-bashers are shockingly well-represented.

Again, thanks for bringing this up. I’d love to see you dive more into the latent hypocrisies that threaten to derail us.

Yes, I could live without coffee, and a million other things, but then you get to a point where life isn’t so fun anymore. There are some things I’m willing to give up or put a little extra effort into (recycling), but the majority of the American population will just completely dismiss environmentalism even more if the solution is “give it up.” Yes, sometimes we have to cut back, but if you can’t cut back, fair trade, organic coffee in a reusable cup is better than doing nothing isn’t it? I think we have to take little steps. Expecting giant leaps isn’t realistic.

While I agree, as I have heard some green entrepreneurs put it, that “it raises education and awareness to have people buy green,” I also think that going to the source in any power structure, provides far more insight into the true motives of any organization. Who benefits?

The whole terrapass gas credit issue addresses this concern directly. I read a bunch of articles (on CNN etc.) about how people are getting to pay a “guilt tax” now by using the terrapass as a justification for hauling around in big rigs. While I can see the benefit provided, by teaching people about alternative energy sources and investing in those resources, the reality is, you are offsetting, not directly changing your ways when you participate.

Buy green – just please, dear god, KEEP BUYING…. ugh.

You know, I take more issue with the idea of all those paper cups than people actually drinking fair-trade organic coffee, which if done properly, provides a very good wage for the people who grow it. Coffee can’t be grown in New York (I don’t know about Cali) and people are def. going to keep drinking it- they have been for a couple hundred years now. If people aren’t going to give up coffee, I say make the process as good as it can be. Organic, fair-trade, and in a non-disposable receptacle!! I think energy going into convincing people to carry their own mugs is easier and will have a bigger impact than trying to convince people to not drink coffee because it isn’t grown in their region. Plus, I don’t think it works. People aren’t going to give up something like coffee until you pry it from their cold, dead hands! (I’m not a coffee addict myself, but I’ve seen what it does to my friends!)