[The social scientists] accused me -- wrongly -- of dismissing altogether the virtues of voluntary change. As I type this essay from my solar-powered house, with a Prius in the driveway and a vegetarian lunch in the oven, I assure you I view voluntary measures as very important. They just won't save us in time, that's all. The Arctic ice is melting way too fast.So, are we talking past each other?
Voluntary actions AND legislative changes are needed if we are going to effectively solve the climate problem. (To be clear, this is not an either/or issue.) I think what Tidwell is saying that voluntary action, though necessary, is not sufficient. But in raising the collective consciousness for political action, I think he inadvertently downplayed the role of voluntary action.
The bottom line (I think) is that we're on the same page. But now I'm wondering if the disconnect between Tidwell and the social scientists is how we're communicating this point. I just hope that in communicating this message, we find a way to express our ideas in a cohesive manner.