Michael Maniates calls for more drastic action. In his opinion, we are not doing enough to combat environmental problems. Instead, we are allowing our politicians to spoon-feed us simple "easy" steps to follow. He mentions our consumerist ways and highlights that even our attempts to help the environment must be stylish, fashionable, and easy to sell. No one wants to do more than this. However, it is exactly this point that I feel he is missing throughout his article. It is great to have such wonderful holistic views of humans and their ability to change so easily, but it is unfortunately not reality. This article presented yet another wonderful idea Michael criticizes. It is nothing but a wonderful idea, as Americans will do nothing in place of the simple small steps. If Americans are not willing to hold their politicians responsible for global environmental problems, but are willing to take small actions, that could in another generation stimulate larger ideas and a stronger passion for change, they will not wish to do anything further than simple everyday actions. Just as in the revolutions he mentions, Americans did not follow them easily. Either we must have another revolution, that is complete and successful, or we continue the small easy steps. If we do not, and the revolution does not capture the hearts and minds of all Americans, we may take two steps backwards. The campaign will show Americans that what they are doing now is not good enough. This may lead to a sense of hopelessness, and the steps being taken, although small, will be stopped. Nothing will happen. Which is worse not enough action or inaction? I agree with Michael that much more drastic steps need to be taken. However, I am not sure Americans are ready for it. Once they see the effects their small steps are making and feel empowered, then we can talk about larger steps, but if we start too soon, we may end up worse off.