I like Mr. Maniates' point that political and environmental elites spoon feed consumers near-marginal revision of daily habit as antidote to rapid environmental degradation. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment delineated humanity's crisis quite starkly: "Human activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted." So why hasn't such a foreboding message provoked more passion, change, or at least a greater consciousness of our species' mortality from elites or the masses?

The advent of the 24 hour news cycle has given physical manifestation to political consciousness. Even those apolitical typically arrive at relevant information regarding the whole of human activity either directly or indirectly from the media. And the media intrinsically provides narratives, or stories. Now examine possible solutions for an issue like global warming: regulations on every type of corporation from Monsanto to Merrill Lynch limiting degradation caused by both production and the product itself. But within the media-provided narrative of the free market and capitalism as intrinsically good - providing the developed world with competition, liberty, and prosperity - regulation and government interference cause immediate anxiety, especially when global warming skeptics cannot even confer the need for such regulations.

My point: the story we tell ourselves about our own existence and historical process - as the "land of the free" that defeated both fascism and communism through its economic liberty - now comes at odds with perhaps our most plausible next steps: limiting the corporation and redefining economic freedom. The debate on global warming and the government's role is, in essence, a debate on the nature and role of the government of the United States itself. Any politician does as Mr. Maniates recommends intrinsically takes a definitive side in this debate - something no good politician will do if he or she can spare it. And with the media preoccupied with the economy, war, and the horse-race of politics itself, why should any politician throw their hat in a ring that has no crowd such as the environment?