In "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It," I agree with Michael Maniates argument that the public needs to take more action than what is being publically promoted. As part of the campaign for green action, environmentalists appeal to us by making environmental actions seem immediately, if we choose to take them. For example, switching to more eco-friendly light bulbs automatically lowers cost for the consumer because they last longer and use less electricity. But, is that enough?

Our social drives to environmental change leave us only wanting to act in away that benefits ourselves, instead of looking for long-term changes. We need to make society based changes. The media tries to portray environmentalism as posh and something "cool" because some celebrities are taking action, but they aren't superheroes. Emulating them isn't going to make the impact we need. True, action is better than no action, but BIG actions are better than small actions. It is going to take a long time for society to adopt large measures, such as cutting back on carbon emissions, because those require a large overhall of everyday activities, such as driving.

The article adresses this issue, but doesn't really offer up any solution to help motivate the masses. Ditching your car and buying a more eco-friendly one might decrease carbon emissions, but dumping an old car in a land fill isn't much more environmentally friendly. It needs to start from the top. If corporations start making more eco-friendly options for consumers, then they will be a lot more likely to adopt them in the future.

A quote from one of our readings said, "We do not inheret the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." I think that quote really speaks to this article and for how our thinking about political action is not creating many long term effects. As the article said, recycling and cutting back on shower times has a more positive effect than a negative one, but it is not enough to create a lasting impact.