Not to mention, it doesn't make any sense to opt for major policy changes that will take enormous amounts of money and human-power if we haven't made a commitment to change our lifestyles at home.

If we don't show our willingness to take the small steps then we will simply fall back into our habits of choosing excess and making poorly informed choices without considering the environmental impact of our actions.

If I'm not committed to change my light bulbs today, how can we say that any of us are committed to a millennia-long policy of environmental stewardship?

The small stuff definitely matters.

I would love BIG change. But that isn't going to happen.

Personal change is MORE valuable than implenting laws and regulations across a massive population. People are individuals, and we make individual lifestyle choices. Forcing change on someone doesn't work. We all know that. Change comes from the inside, when the value is clear to the individual.

However, I think BIG change can happen in the corporate/industrial world, where regulation is the norm. And the "trickle down" effect would further personal change as well.

It is the individual choice that drives policy, whether by the dollar or by the vote. It may be slower than across-the-board change, but it sticks.

"While I do believe we have a moral responsibility to do what we can as individuals, we just don't have enough time to win this battle one household at a time, street by painstaking street, from coast to coast."
---I agree with this statement.

'Dismissing the importance of small personal behavior choices in favor of a sole focus on policy changes is a big mistake. Small behaviors are important not only for the direct environmental impact they have, but because they often lead to more and more pro-environmental behaviors over time. and Numerous psychological studies have shown that people are more likely to agree to take a big action if they've previously agreed to smaller, similar actions. Thus, changing a light bulb may lead to higher impact behaviors like giving up plastic water bottles, insulating one's house, living closer to work, reducing meat consumption, and actively supporting legislation that will likely require personal sacrifice.'
---I also agree with this statement. These two statements are not incompatible. And I personally believe they fit nicely together. Small steps will not solve the problem. But neither will the problem be solved without them. Small steps are needed to make big steps more feasible and likely. The big steps and the small steps together have a much bigger chance of successfully dealing with the problem. But a sole focus on small steps will NOT solve the problem just like a sole focus on big ones won't.

'I would love BIG change. But that isn't going to happen.'
---Big is a very relative concept. In my opinion, VERY BIG change is ALREADY happening - and much of it came about because of accumulated pressures from very small changes and voices. But even BIGGER changes need to occur.

'Personal change is MORE valuable than implenting laws and regulations across a massive population. People are individuals, and we make individual lifestyle choices. Forcing change on someone doesn't work. We all know that. Change comes from the inside, when the value is clear to the individual.'
---I disagree. Forcing change on people almost always works. We all know that. Change begins from the inside of society, when the value is clear to the far-sighted enlightened moral few, and then that value spreads to a critical mass of society, at which point that critical mass FORCES the rest to follow suit. Do I need to tick off the innumerable instances where this is so? Or would a simple few suffice? Did southern society in the US naturally evolve to accept blacks as free men? No. They were FORCED to accept abolition by the federal government. Did they accept equality of law and treatment through reason? No. They were forced by the federal government. Did most men accept female suffrage naturally? No. They were forced to accept it by legislation and only slowly did most men come to accept women as equals. Do most men in most societies accept women as equals? No. In Egypt, female circumscicion has been a long brutal tradition pushed on women by men. It still happens. The only reason it is slowly changing is because the government of Egypt is FORCING society to change. Driving drunk in many countries was considered more than acceptable. Did most drunk drivers just take it upon themselves to change? No. The government FORCED them to change through strict laws and strict enforcement of those laws. What about smoking in public places. FORCED. What about child abusing parents? FORCED. What about pet abusing individuals? FORCED. Tell you what. If these examples aren't enough, just let me know. The internet has a vast treasure trove of legal documents detailing laws throughout the world that FORCE people to do what they otherwise wouldn't do because they don't see blacks as equals, or women, or foreigners, or don't see pets as creatures with the ability to feel pain and suffering (or don't care), or don't see they damage they do to others and society from their addictions or inappropriate drug use, etc. etc. Society FORCES the laggards to adjust all the time. That is what laws are. If we DIDN'T need to force people to change habits and lifestyles to ensure the proper functioning of society, then those laws wouldn't ever come to pass. FORCING people to change for the better always works for society in the long term. ALWAYS. If society functioned based on your premise, we never would have progressed as a civilization. We would still have people in society owning slaves and treating non-whites and women like animals. And so on. Your premise was disproved the day the first laws were passed.