BioP, I think you may be overreacting a little bit. Maybe you know something about Monbiot that I don't -- I don't know much -- but I don't think you can infer a preference for "tyrrany" just from what's in this piece.

Governments "force" us to change our behavior all the time -- every law and regulation forces a change in behavior in the broad sense. If our gov't instituted a $2/gallon gas tax, that would force a lot of walking and public-transit riding.

I don't think he was getting at anything other than getting rid of perverse incentives and putting into place more environmentally benign incentives. Maybe I'm wrong.

www.grist.org

The right thinks it's all about personal responsibility, as if the decisions of those in power have no effect on everyone else.  The left thinks that the actions of average people don't matter, as if those in power would be able to make their decisions without at least some agreement or acquiescence by average people, and as if the actions of hundreds of millions of people don't matter.

Well, you're both wrong.  Of course those with more power have more responsibility for what goes on, but average people are also responsible.  As the Nuremberg trials held, we are all responsible for our actions.  More importantly, the actions of the large majority are what constitutes human behavior and affects the planet.

My point is that Dave is dead wrong that personal responsibility and mindful living are distractions.  As a former Bush I staff person said, we can oppose war all we want, with demonstrations, letters to Congress, etc., but so long as we consume a lot of gas, we've voted for oil wars.

On the other hand, Dave is dead right that "[t]he goal is creating a human society where a life of environmental virtue is de facto, something individuals live without thinking twice about it, because their material and social circumstances channel them in that direction."

There's no reason not to strive for both.  The right's propagandistic lies are obvious to the left, but the left's abandonment of personal responsibility should be reconsidered and discarded as the bleeding heart folly that it is.

I think progressives need to do a better job of scrutinizing the personal purity of the right wing lot that now rule our fair land. While it's hard to lead an environmentally benign life, it must be even harder to go to prayer meetings every day, regularly break up gay weddings, etc. We should cast the first stone!

A simple query about how Grist's writers "live in reality" is neatly evaded via name calling (fruitcake), sarcasm (gasp -- hypocrasy!), and an ad hominem attack (this is ... a favorite right-wing talking point).  The writer wasn't asking how virtuous you are, they were asking whether your actions support your words.

Yes, it will take structural changes; but this isn't an either/or situation.  Or do you believe that those structural changes can occur ex nihilo?  People unwilling to examine their own lives and change them to support their ideals are unlikely to have either the drive or understanding to promote effective changes in the society at large.  Nor are they likely to inspire much support for change in others.

Fact: we are approaching a major social catastrophe known as peak oil. With oil no longer cheap and plentiful, Americans will finally be forced to confront the realities of physical, planetary existence -- and it won't be pretty.

As with most human tragedy, there are two primary responses: Hope and despair. If you think that it's too late, that the world has already gone on overload and that environmental and social catastrophe is inevitable no matter what we do, then I suppose one can feel justified in continuing one's current behavior until forced by circumstances to do otherwise. Better to party hearty than to wear a hair-shirt, right?

If, however, one thinks that there's still a chance to pull our tofu out of the fire, then we face another set of choices around the question: How should we act?

While I will agree that we will not see a time when everyone becomes spiritually enlightened (for reasons that are beyond this discussion), each transition in human consciousness only needs a critical mass of people who embrace the emerging culture to bring along the rest of the population. (Yeah, yeah, hundredth money, blah, blah. What I'm talking about is more subtle than that.) And the leaders of the emerging culture must do more than just critique the behavior of others. They need to lead by example, creating a living vision of how the next level of consciousness looks so that the unimaginative sheep can have pointed out to them just what they should do. It's a fact of human psychology: People are more moved by example than by criticism.

This is a major point of Monbiot's screed. He criticizes -- and rightly, I think, having also seen the hypocrisy first hand -- those high profile environmentalists who do, in fact, act hypocritically. Where he goes too far is to imply that all environmental leaders are hypocrites. Okay, he was pissed and over-reached. But are we wrong to criticize one another? Frankly, I find it demoralizing when my own colleagues don't get that they have to walk the talk. It undermines all that the rest of us are doing.

Although we can be constrained by cultural conventions, not to mention physical reality, there have always been people in history who somehow found a way to move beyond that. And so it is today. To fall back on the argument that humans are fallible, we're all doing the best we can, etc. is a cop out. There are numerous people, all over the planet, who are defying the norms of their culture and trying to make this a better world in every sphere. And they are doing it in spite of cultural norms and the enmity of the top levels of the hierarchy.

Many of these people are humble -- courageous, but humble. They are working in out-of-the-way places, far from the superstar spotlight. That is to be expected. Cultural change typically comes from the fringe and works its way in.

In contrast, our political leaders dither. Can we ask our leaders to save us from ourselves, as Monbiot suggests? I don't think so. Political leaders are in fact cultural followers. The political realm is always the last to confirm what the people already know. By the time politicians enact the laws we need, they probably won't be needed. This is why I think we waste so much energy when we beseech politicians -- whether through polite petition or by rioting in the streets -- to do this and that. We disempower ourselves by confirming their power over us.

Anyway, are we such children that we have to wait for some troglodyte politician to give us permission to behave sanely? If we cannot feel free enough to create a new culture without any else's permission, then we are lost.

To create a new culture, we must begin to live in the new culture. So it is not a matter of doing the best we can in the current culture. We must literally leave that culture behind, free ourselves mentally, first, then start to move away physically, whatever that might mean for you or me.

In the end, we are left with the need to not only create living examples, but to bring that vision to a wider audience. With the Merchants of Death controlling so much of our media, that's quite a challenge. But if we do finally get the spotlight on us, we had better be worthy of it. We had better have the outline of a new culture to showcase.

To the inevitable question: How am I doing? The answer is: Not nearly as good as I'd like. But I'm going to do everything in my power to see that I do even more.

"Can we ask our leaders to save us from ourselves, as Monbiot suggests? I don't think so. Political leaders are in fact cultural followers."

I too tend to favor the non-state, anarchist model, and I can supply plenty of fact and theory to support my approach.  However, I have a larger theory which is the theory of my ignorance.  I don't really know what will work.  Maybe George Monbiot and those who think as he does can bring about a significant change to the situation.  If that's what they believe in, let them try their way.  Correspondingly, Monbiot and company need to let me try mine, and forget about lecturing me about the "disastrous distraction" of my ways.  In general, we need to stop getting in the traditional circular-firing-squad formation.