I think that there should have been a fourth option. I would have chosen both option 2 and option 3. While I feel that people should choose a sustainable lifestyle, some will unfortunatly never do so. Also, we need strict environmental protections. So, the best option is a combonation of the two

None of the above. The demand will come from groups of individuals, not individuals.

The demand will come when people see the options as individual choices they can make throughout their day. Besides, most people just aren't aware of what their choices for products are. why is that?

If people see their friends using products or appliances that are sustainable then they will too, to keep up with the Jones'.

Option 3 is worded wrong. The "once" implies that we're waiting for something to happen, rather than being something that must be done. IMHO, It's also just a more elaborate version of option 1.

The key is to show people that sustainable is better and cheaper in the long run, but from the history of things, that won't happen fast enough without some heavy handedness from either consumers or the government.

Personally, after watching people toss cans into the trash when the recycle bin is 3 feet further away, I don't have much hope that they will make better choices on their own without some sort of governmental or financial incentive.

Somewhat circular.

I would substitute "availability" for "adoption" in option 1.

There is no coherent vision of what a sustainable or restorative society would look like. Until there is a vision that a majority of people can see themselves living, there will not be a sustainable or restorative society.

Good lord, if those survey results accurately reflect environmentalist opinion, we are well and truly screwed. More here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/10/3/165123/542

This is the standard supply side verses demand side argument we have going here. The third choice is Utopian vision of miraculous enlightenment overcoming everyone at once. As the last 5 years have shown us supply side solutions are always complete failures, for as long as there is a cheaper more familiar choice available a majority of the population will always pick it. The third choice is nuts, if you've ever had a conversation with the people that hate tree huggers it wouldn't take you very long to realize that it is impossible to convince them that there is a problem to begin with. The question assume the acceptance of the premise that sustainable is better than unsustainable and they don't believe that. Are they stupid, yes, does that change the fact that there are more of them than us, no. There is little chance that some mass enlightenment could come along in that kind of environment. The only choice is the demand argument, because only by creating demand will you get the technological development and with the elimination of the bad choices, people will grow to not even remember how they use to do it. But it will take generations, with grandpa telling the grand kids that there is no reason for it and them telling some version of it to their kids. It won't be pretty, but it's the only choice that has any chance of working at all.

I think you've missed the point, Dave. The idea is to develop sustainable technologies that don't require substantial personal sacrifice. If, for example, consumers are given the choice between cars of equivalent performance and cost, with one getting twice the gas mileage of the other, they'll buy the more efficient car. Efficiency has already been sold to the public as a good thing; now they need products to choose.

Your idea, basically, is to use the government to force people to go against human nature to achieve a result that has nothing to do with relieving social injustice. Not only is that oppressive, it's inefficient and ultimately, ineffective.

Instead, mesh efficient technologies with human nature, and people will gravitate towards them. Basically, once the technology corporations realize they can turn a decent profit with sustainable technology, we'll see some success.

As another example: the first company that develops a reasonably-priced, high-efficiency full-spectrum solar cell is going to make a fortune. Imagine getting 800 watts per square meter out of a solar panel: distributed power infrastructure would no longer be necessary for large parts of the country. New housing would be built with its own power source. There would be solar-charged electric vehicles...the list goes on. IMO, it's one of the most important potential technologies ever.

And it's not going to happen by government decree. It's going to happen by hitching human ingenuity to human nature (that is, to greed and lust for profit).

This is crazy. Most people actually believe in the individual's ability to make sound choices, especially ones regarding unselfish motives? And even moreso when related to "bigger pictures" that don't "directly" affect them?

Sorry, but I'm nowhere near that idealistic. The truth is for absolutely anything to change in society, it requires absolutely no input from the general public - they simply don't care and are willing to follow the newest fad like blind sheep. It's specific individuals, leaders, pioneers, who change and shape society through example and/or force, such as the law. Does anyone honestly believe a significant majority of the public cares that Nike owned sweatshops? That Gap still does? That the United States is the most wasteful country in the world? What a joke - I think I'll live in reality, where if you want things to change, you need copious amounts of regulation.

Next we'll say that businesses are just naturally very responsible.

Hi! I agree with a commenter on the last survey thread, it might help if you didn't reveal the survey's results until after someone has already voted, so as to reduce bias... =)

Ian, I think you've set up a bit of a strawman. Surely you don't equate any government action with "forcing" and "oppression" and "decrees." That's a right-wing frame and it always disturbs me to see how successful they've been in penetrating even the progressive community with it.

I'm not disputing the need for private initiatives and sustainable technologies. But the market is not an independent entity that government can either "meddle" with or leave alone. Markets are social constructs and governments are deeply implicated in how they operate, ours included.

Right now the weight of the government -- from federal down to (in the vast majority of cases) municipal -- is pressing against progressive change on sustainability issues. This is about stuff from as big as CAFE standards all the way down to local zoning codes. That is the stuff that shapes the infrastructure of our communities. That stuff has to change.

It's great for people to conserve more and buy sustainable products. But no environmentalist should fool him/herself into thinking that's *enough*.

Most in the US make their 'choices' based on what is cheap, and what everyone else is doing. If our govt really wanted to win here, they would subsidy sustainable invention, tax wasteful consuption, and regulate. Instead we have the reverse situation. The recent call on conservation is laughable, given the massive energy bill that just got passed.

I guess I'd opt for an option more towards 'force', though make it "market-driven" (like subsidies like agribusiness), rather than regulated. That's what makes our big fat country tick.

Ian, I think you've set up a bit of a strawman. Surely you don't equate any government action with "forcing" and "oppression" and "decrees." That's a right-wing frame and it always disturbs me to see how successful they've been in penetrating even the progressive community with it.

I'm similarly disturbed by Lakoff's penetration into the progressive community. ;-)

But no, I don't equate "any" government action etc., etc.; which is why I mentioned social injustice (specifically, I was thinking of civil rights legislation; sometimes, "human nature" does need a kick in the head). I'm also referring specifically to federal action.

Think about it: the reason we're in the mess we're in is because the private sector built a vast economic petro-based monolith leading into and following WWII. The citizenry wanted it that way...cheap fuel, big cars, long highways, lots of modern plastic, ubiquitous air travel, and everything else that followed from that. The money accreted first, and the power and regulatory inertia followed. You can see how very effective that's been.

It wasn't really planned. It was a natural consequence of the concentration of wealth into certain sectors of the economy which were based on a specific technology that required the profligate use of petrochemicals.

There's very little I trust the federal government to handle. What I do trust are human ingenuity and the profit motive. The two coupled together can move mountains, and they can certainly alter social structures.

And make no mistake: the current governmental and regulatory climate regarding sustainable development is a mountain that's been built by stready accretion over just fifty years. It will take at least that long, and require similar processes, to undo it.

That's not to say that no effort should be made changing community infrastructure...last month at a recumbent bike rally I met a women who's working with the building industry as a liason between the green housing movement, local municipalities, and the builders. Slow, painstaking, necessary work...but local.

The Federal mountain...that's an entirely different story.

Government... blah, blah blah, government... blah blah... the government is the people, it won't change until the people change. Change the people. Talk to your neighbors. If you think your neighbors are too ignorant to change, then enlighten them. If you think your neighbors are too stupid to change, then you're a self righteous, elitist a-- hole. Act locally think globally.

A person is smart, but people are stupid. Doesn't matter how much I hope #3 is true, it will never be. Like somebody earlier said, most people in the US buy things that are cheap rather than environmental. That's why Wal-Mart is doing so well.

I hate to say it, because I really hope it's not true, but it is really depending on government policy to have a more sustainable society. I'm from Oregon, where most of us pride ourselves to be environmentalist. In every super-market we have recycling machines for soda cans, glass bottles. Paper recylcing center are everywhere. You can just put recylable items next to your trash bin and the city will take it to recycle. How do we do it? Government policy. Every soda you buy in Oregon is 5 cents more, for deposit, and that you will get the money back when you recycle it.

I took several trips down to California and tried to recycle some soda pop cans in their safeway, and was in such a shock when they told me there is no such thing as a recycling machine.

A Coca-cola bottle in Oregon would have a place on the label that printed: "5 cents refund in OR, WA". Same label on a Coca-cola bottle in Florida would say, "No Refill".

Governmeny policy works.

You and I are from the same state, Joe, and yes, I agree that Oregonians are very involved in environmentalism.

Also, I felt you brought up some excellent examples as a counterpoint to anyone who feels the "people" lead or need to individually change anything: can/bottle machines and the 5 cent law is great.

How can anyone possibly justify an individual's ability to make sound choices regarding society? Whoever selected the third option in this poll, please, come forward and explain yourself. Most people selected it and I know there's someone who didn't just click at random.