Pollan's point -- and I think it's a very important one, and one which he makes very well -- is that individual action and right living is important despite the discrepancy between the scale of the problem and the impact of the individual.  I don't think that he is suggesting that this is in any way in conflict with, or in place of, political and legislative action.

Consider his audience: 99% of Americans are not politically involved.  Telling those people, essentially, "You must get involved, RIGHT NOW, and affect massive and rapid change to our national politics" (i.e. the message you seem to think would be most appropriate) is not going to recruit any of those 99%.  It will just reinforce their belief that the whole thing is too big for them, and give them another excuse to tune out.

On the other hand, the message he did provide was:
Yes, it matters what you do.
There are specific, concrete actions you can take RIGHT NOW, and you should.  (No political message I am aware of is, or can be, that immediately concrete.)

With his message, I think he will reach some fraction of the currently-disconnected populace who are frustrated with the size of the problem and their individual impotence.  Some of those people he reaches will act on his suggestion.  Some of them will become engaged.  Some of THEM might even become hardcore political activists and start working the legislative angle.  Others may be inspired to make major lifestyle or career changes.  Those are real, significant, important things.  But you can't expect people to go from 0 to 60 in an instant.  If you tell people "You must eat the whole elephant, right now", all you'll get is a bunch of turned-off, disconnected folks.

And yes, I see the immediacy and urgency of the problem.  I realize that if we don't act dramatically and quickly, life as we know it is over.  I even realize that that point may have already passed -- it may already be too late.  Be that as it may, a screed about the need for urgent action is NOT going magically awaken the sleepers.  But a well articulated explanation of how and why individuals can make a difference may reach some of them -- and that's alot better than reaching none of them.

It's a mindset. Once you grow some of your own food, you may begin wondering what else you can do for yourself, not in the sense of increasing isolation or individualism but in the sense of self-reliance. How can we become less reliant on corporations for our basic needs? And gardening opens people to a relationship with plants, soil, creepy crawlies, and a whole word of not-human interations. It's a good thing. Even growing in pots on balconys or a few herbs on the windowsill can open minds a bit. At least that's what I believe.

Oh my goodness. Sorry about the mistakes. "interactions" and "balconies". My inner-editor kicked in too late.

Maywa, some good points, but as the fourth assessment FAQ section 10.3 of IPCC states, even 100% reductions in co2 emissions in 2007 will only reduce atmospheric ppm by about 40 ppm by the year 2100. That means that 100% reductions will maintain what James Hansen calls dangerous levels not just for a few years, but for generations!

Cutting emissions will help with energy independence, and that's a big deal. But expecting it to solve climate change by itself is a gallant cavalry charge into the barbed wire.

Enhancing the biological carbon cycle will be more effective, and help with the food crisis as well. This will require a transformation of agriculture, but the models are already there.

soilcarboncoalition.org

I read the article before I read this post. It seemed clear (to me) that Pollan's argument was that personal action alone cannot solve the problem, policy alone cannot solve the problem; both are needed.

Which is why it is so disappointing to hear politicians (like Barack) say that the best thing we can do is to make more efficient cars. We need to change what we do as well as how we do it. In Pollan's words, changing the cheap-energy way of doing things, not just making the cheap-energy way of doing things more efficient. As citizens, that means not just voting and pestering politicians but also changing how we do things.

I don't know that I agree with your assessment that Pielke, etc are in fact well intentioned but misguided, but if I accept that premise for the sake of argument, I think I understand your point.  

However, even at that point, I have to disagree.  There are a couple of places where the analogy breaks down, in my view.

Pielke and the other techno-optimists argue the position that it doesn't make sense to make major changes, either in our infrastructure or in our personal habits, until better technology comes along (to make those changes painless, in their ideal).  Whereas Pollan suggests specific personal actions that can be taken, right now, to push things in the right direction.  Even if he's not encouraging people to do the very best thing they could do about the problem, he's encouraging them to do something that is good and useful and positive, and that's a whole lot better than nothing.

I also think you are underestimating the power of Pollan's suggestions.  They are presented in a very mild and even-handed fashion, but they are actually quite radical: pull up your lawn, and plant food.  That strikes right at the heart of the American suburban dream.  The lawn is a holdover from the lord's manor house, when a big lawn meant you owned a big herd of sheep (and enough peasants to shepherd them).  Pollan is suggesting disposing of that icon of affluence in favor of something much more practical and real.  That's revolutionary.

Also, I think you are underestimating the personal emotional and psychological impact that gardening and growing your own food can have.  It can totally transform your relationship with your food and with your natural environment.  It is frequently and surprisingly addictive, and it encourages people to pay close attention to elements of the natural world that most modern Americans are disconnected from, like the weather and the insects and what else is in bloom.  It strikes directly at the industrial agricultural system, one of our most insidious and ultimately dangerous dependencies.  It restores a basic connection between people and their environment.  That connection has dominated most of human history, but has been forgotten in recent generations, and I'm convinced that that is part of the reason that people can rationalize the damage that our civilization does to the world: they are ecologically illiterate and they have forgotten that our health and prosperity is ultimately and intimately tied to that of other living systems.  And there are certain crops - salad, artichoke, most berries - where the flavor of fresh-picked simply cannot be equaled by anything from the store.  That in itself is a visceral eye-opening experience.

They say that there is no evangelist as earnest as the converted.  That would be true here, for sure.  I'm an engineer, and someone who until about 7 years ago had no interest whatsoever in gardening, and only a passing and casual interest in the environment.  Gardening has opened my eyes to fundamental relationships that cannot easily be described but that are clearly and obviously true from experience.  It has attuned me to the natural world and taught me to pay attention.  And it has had this effect on others that I have talked to -- this isn't just my experience talking.

Don't underestimate the power of planting a garden.

> "I'm afraid [Pollan's] arguments will be mis-used by those in the establishment to drag their feet on legislation."

And they're embraced on a local level -  working in the garden is much more pleasant than trying to collect signatures in front of the supermarket.

I like Pollan too but Maywa's point is CRUCIAL.  This is not really a criticism of Pollan, but if action is going to be taken now (and by "now", I mean 2008/2009) how many new gardens will really be planted in the next couple years?  The work that enviropolitical organizers like McKibben have done, organizing rallies, creative campaigns, etc., have put climate change legislation on the map in a big way in a very short amount of time.  Even subtle (or accidental) suggestions like Pollan's that most people are "waiting" on their leaders, while maybe true, hurt the cause because they infer that political action hasn't, and won't, truly accomplish anything.

AllenT45 wrote: The work that enviropolitical organizers like McKibben have done, organizing rallies, creative campaigns, etc., have put climate change legislation on the map in a big way in a very short amount of time.
I guess that you had no chanced yet to see Maywa's "Me Worry" post. According to the information from the Pew studies that she posted, all of the grand stand media attracting actions by Ted Glick and Mckibben, have done little to change public opinion.

Even Frank Luntz got the message and that took some doing for him to admit it.  Maybe we should hire Luntz to shape a campaign to country the one he defined originally.

We need to start replacing politicians who don't have the guts to do the right thing.  Maybe the only way to do that is to being with the simple act of gardening because what we are doing right now is not working.

Wes Rolley CoChair - EcoAction Committee Green Party US