In his piece for the Washington Post, Michael Maniates chides the environmental movement in America, criticizing its focus on the ease and simplicity of solving environmental issues. Maniates argues that the challenges we face are not simple, and their solutions should not be treated as such.

Disseminating information on environmental degradation and conservation is a difficult task indeed. Scientists and policy makers must at once stress the urgency of environmental threats, while making conservation efforts seem accessible to average Americans. For many middle class families, especially in "red states," economic concerns, not environmental, define everyday life. Americans often feel far removed from environmental degradation unless they are enduring a natural disaster. Unfortunately, many of these families would look at Maniates' article and see an extremist point of view. I myself grew up in Oklahoma, where convincing people to recycle is enough of a task, let alone convincing people to bike instead of drive SUVs, compost trash, cease the use of styrofoam, etc. Many Americans need an introduction to green life, and books like "The Easy Environmentalist" provide just that. Yes, the problems are huge and interconnected. No, merely reducing the rate of environmental damage is not enough. But one must note what the situation would be like without the cumulative effects of small actions.

The key to accomplishing real goals in environmental policy is making incremental changes. Individuals, households, businesses, and governments must find it to be in their interest to gradually reduce their environmental harm. On an international level, this is evident in the O-Zone Hole and CFC regime of the Montreal Protocol in 1987. Countries agreed to make incremental changes, gradually reducing the production of Ozone killing materials. Individuals, too, must make incremental changes in their lives in order to become greener world citizens.