It seems to me that we as activists hear over and over that Americans are afraid to have to change their lifestyles (aka give up all their beloved things) to help reduce the impending impacts of global climate change, but that's exactly what authors like Bill McKibben (rightfully) ask them to do.

My question is, then, what happened to the "Cradle-to-Cradle" discussion? If we know that the average American is not going to act quickly to reduce their intake of stuff and therefore output of carbon dioxide, then why don't we try to focus on new technological advancement (terms that conservatives can get into) to try to produce smarter. Is the cradle-to-cradle idea still a feasible one and perhaps one that we should spend more time promoting and looking for R&D funding for? Wouldn't it help stimulate the economy without sounding as scary as the word "regulation"?

I'm really interested to hear other's ideas about this topic because if we have as little time to make sweeping changes as the latest numbers suggest, then don't we need to actively address the problem of American apathy toward consumer habits and try to beat it if we can't sway it?
 

Cguitar, I couldn't agree more.  Relative to what's realistically possible via convincing people to buy and use less, what's possible via reducing the impact of what they buy and use is more promising by several orders of magnitude.

www.grist.org