Tricky, and as it's all such a complicated massive subject the potential for argument is huge!
Maybe "Do as I do, don't do as I say"??

I have always liked the "Lead by Example" and "Positive Reenforcement" schools of thought.

I am by no means the poster boy for carbon neutral or eco friently, but I always try to compliment anyone I see that is doing something more echo friendly than me. I try to do it in a public manner if at all possible so that others will want to be more like that person (as I do too).

I also try to show off any eco friendly advance I have implemented and explain how it is an advantage to me some how (CFLs lowering my electric bill, recycling teaching my children structure, etc.). Not every one wants to save the planet for the sake of saving the planet. However, most people would love to save a few bucks or have some other advantage in their lives. If they can do this in a manner that helps protect the planet all the better, they figure.

If you've got a friend who's using harmful cleaning products and want them to change, buy them socially responsible cleaning products.

If your grandmother is buying Peruvian asparagus, take her somewhere that sells local foods next time you go shopping with here.

If you've got a friend who bought an SUV, buy them carbon credits to offset their purchase for their birthday. They might be mad that you didn't buy them $ARBITRARY_GADGET, but they'll get the message and can't be mad at you because, after all, you did get them something.

The key is to make it easier for them to do the right thing. One thing my job writing web applications has taught me is that people won't always do what is right, but they'll always do what is easy.

This plot will be repeated throughout history till the last two humans alive cease to exist. Civilization has evolved since the beginning of recorded history. Society's conceptions of good and bad, right and wrong, wants and needs have changed, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes accidentally. Modern-day society tries to 'improve' its conditions and that of all its members, but differences of opinion exist about what is good and bad, important and unimportant, urgent and not. Groups will form around certain viewpoints, as they always have, to push society in a certain way. Sometimes these groups cooperate, sometimes they compete, sometimes they clash. But society 'progresses' and the views of certain groups come to dominate and control society while other groups and their views either disappear or slink to the shadows. More often than not, particularly on large issues, 'progress' does NOT occur without confrontation of some sort or other. Slavery used to be widespread and accepted as normal, even desirable - a societal good. In America slavery was a divisive topic for a very long time. Abolitionists wanted the end of slavery. Slave-owners were opposed. Abolitionists had their arguments against and slave-owners for its continuation. Abolitionists tried to educate slave-owners, to shame them and to legislate the practice away. Slave-owners argued the heavens and hell to keep slavery. In the end progress on this issue in America came only through civil war. Sometimes progress comes only with blood. Ask the American Revolutionaries. Ask Yankee abolitionists. Ask the US labor unionists of the early twentieth century who had to often fight their way to get labor rights. Sometimes the conflict doesn't involve blood (or at least not much of it). The women's movement, the civil rights movement, the consumer rights movement, and so on and on. America is the relatively progressive country it is because some groups of people were willing to stand up and say what is right and what needs to change and which direction the country needed to move towards, and they did so in complete opposition of more often than not countervailing and stronger groups - who would claim God-almighty, the red-white and blue, freedom, money, and any other powerful slogan to preserve their self-serving status-quo. Society does not improve if progressive groups do not stand up to the groups benefitting from the negative status-quo. We all want peaceful progress. The less confrontational and stressful, the better. But let us be honest, some groups, some people are immune to education and to shame. Sometimes even to legislation and money. First we need to try to educate. This will be enough to convince altruistic responsible people. Then we need to shame to convince some of the laggards. If these are not enough to solve the problems facing society, we then need to confront and then legislate. That is the way of progress - of the past, of the present and of the future. It is no different for the environmental movement. But of course, those self-servingly in favor of the status-quo will try to convince you otherwise. They will tell you that this case is not the same - as they have done, and will do, throughout history. Progress doesn't happen if you don't make it happen. Each of us who sees the need to save the planet will find his and her own way of standing up for and pushing the needed changes. The opposing non-greens are history in the making.

And yes, we all are responsible for global warming. But that does not mean we keep mum about it. It means we speak against it at the same time we personally try to stop being part of the problem. What is hypocritical is NOT that we speak against non-green habits while having our own, it is when we speak against non-green habits and we aren't making any honest efforts to be green. I am still part of the global warming problem, but I have no problem in getting in the face of a Hummer-driver that tries to honk me off the road with a superloud honker when I am biking and scream in his face that he is part of the problem and he needs to freaking change his habits for the benefit of all of us.

Shame has it's place as a rhetorical strategy, but it's a potent weapon and should be used with care. Today we see the Right in the US using the shame stick for all it's worth, and that's one of the reasons the country is drifting back to the center.Enivornmentalists and others must NEVER make the same mistake!

I always yell at my mom at how much energy she wastes and all that but lo and behold
even after I told her about CFL's and how they SAVE money, are BRIGHTER, and LAST LONGER
she still came home yesterday with a pack of 4 Regular bulbs.
I got mad at her.

TK: Maybe it's my trickster nature coming through, but I'd buy CF bulbs and gradually replace every bulb in the house. Chances are your mom won't notice, and you'll get a giggle every time she turns on a light.

If you need bulbs for this effort I'd be happy to provide them.

Or you can get her a home energy kit for christmas: A set of CF bulbs, a programmable thermostat, and a new sweater.

a few years ago my mother needed a new used car. i talked her into a compact car, and she bought a neon. this past year her boyfriend needed a new car after switching companies and losing a company car. they bought a honda cr-v despite everything ive repeatedly told my mother, becos they couldnt find a "safe" compact car on consumer reports. her and her boyfriend switched cars, so she would be "safer", now she drives to and from work, 20 miles from our rural home, in an suv by herself. she also brags to me about her gas mileage, which might be great for an suv, but i drive a chevy metro and im not buying it. now im in the market for a new used car, and theyre freaking out as i look into toyota echos, chevy aveos, and ford focuses, trying to put me into a larger sedan. theyre worried about safety, im worried about the world their still hypothetical grandchildren, my hyptothetical babies, will inherit.

if there weren't people driving these huge gas guzzlers, it would be alot safer to drive these tiny cars. me, im of the mind that if i end up in a major wreck, well, fates gonna be the real decider if im effed or not, not the size of my car.

as to fighting the people i care about, i just try to be gentle and lead by example. i love being able to breath the air, and drink the water, but without the people i really love, whats it worth?

Dialogue; don't nag.

I find that in my life, my level of personal satisfaction and my desire to nag are inversely correlated. That feeling you get, that you're completely justified, and that you absolutely "have" to say something for the good of the planet...is complete rubbish, for the following reasons:

1) If you want to save the planet, there are always other more pressing things you can do.

2) Nagging never works anyway. (Not even "friendly reminders"--think of your mother.)

Nagging is just a way to blow off steam. It makes you feel righteous, and you might even be "right". Doesn't matter. If you really want to do something for the planet, you need to do what's most effective.

Dialogue is a completely different matter. It can be quite effective. I doubt that nagging ever produced a positive result--it turns your great idea into a simple contest of wills. However, through dialogue, you can plant ideas that eventually grow into oak trees.

Don't expect someone to cave in there and then (if they do, then they're probably completely ineffectual anyway). Far better to plant a seed in the mind of your interlocutor that will bear fruit weeks months or years down the road.

Great post. I am new to your blog and I like what I see. I look forward to your future work.