These questions are missing a very important dimension. Short term vs. long term. Sacrifices may be needed in the short term, but sustainable living provides a higher quality of life in the long term.

As long as people subscribe to this false dichotomy, and feel they have to give up the modern lifestyle to "save the planet," there will be little popular support for the necessary policy changes.

Unfortunately land use planning over the last 50 or so years that have promoted single-use out of town developments - suburban sprawl in other words - make lifestyle changes difficult so this means people are 'locked-in' to lifestyles that prevent day to day tasks that encourage walking and so on. A good example is the irony of people driving 5 miles to the gym.

Interesting to see how these stats change when/if EVs with their range extenders and society's main energy sources predominantly change-over, in say 20 -30 yrs, especially when we see (likely) that the size of vehicles does not change (perhaps for a slight dip in 2008 -2015), the miles travels stays similar or increases, and the proportion of space set aside to suburban living does not change - with the knowledge that some city downtowns and uptowns somewhat increase density. My point: technology improvement more than 'Lifestyle Change' (whatever that loaded, non-sensical term really means in dollars and cents) will be the savior, if the World can be saved. If it makes people feel better to think that by banding together in some sense of community fighting for a noble and just cause to save the planet by having 'earth hours' -or- cycling to work so that it takes you 45 mins instead of 15 and gets you wet and dirty and bitter -or- putting in fluorescents just so you don't feel guilty about leaving lights on all night, even though you hate the colour, buzz, and price -or- planting local fauna that looks hideous, devalues property, and creates animosity in the neighborhood --- then by all means consume that activist dogma. I prefer to promote change by getting education in the appropriate sciences; learning the scientific peer-reviewed truth away from mainstream media; acting with provable, real-time facts behind me; act with long-term goals that are actually psychologically and physiologically reasonable -and thus sustainable; and do nothing whose sole purpose is to inspire others to join a cause, commit civil disobedience, nor promote behavior that you can't comfortably keep up for the next 30 years. The world is littered with the emotionally poor and psychologically broken that thought they were fighting for the right cause by dissing everything that has been created in today's modern society - as if none of it had any value. The world is changed by those unassuming individuals who live happy content lives that somewhat contribute to their community and their own reasonably healthy lifestyles while making reasonable technological upgrades that likely have some net benefit for all. You want to make a difference - live the non-obtrusive/non-sensational life that makes other notice and respect you -- for they will try to legitimately learn a real 'sustainable' lesson from you.

((that all being said, i doubt that the auto industry would have pushed electrical vehicle technology and the energy sector pushed renewables (incl. nuclear) as fast as needs to happen)) - meh. sometimes the 'path' needs to be nudged by outside sources.

Environmental Action by Passionate individuals -- truly the opiate (and most likely placebo) of the masses. Sad and pathetic creatures.

I think Jer is closer to reality.

I realize that all the benefits that might accrue by a person losing weight may be just a metaphor, but a simplistic belief that the simple life will save us is all too common and just that, simple.

It’s like believing that since you can pick up the 50 pound calf today, all you have to do is heft it every day until it is a 2 ton bull.

Bull.

The reason 65% say Americans won’t make the major cutbacks required is because they are realists.

Believing that the necessary sacrifices will pay off in kind, in the near future is just wishful thinking.

If you think people packed into cities is considered a reward, not a sacrifice, by most families, you have a tenuous grasp on reality.

Auto makers are trying to make cars people will buy, not the cars of the future, not the cars that cost more to own but reduce imports and not the cars we would like to see on the roads.

Today, Jan 1, 2010 thru March 2010, the Impala (made by Obama motors) is up 39% from last year, and outsold the Prius , 1.5% to 1.1%, in the US.

Light trucks were (are) 48.4% while cars are 51.6% of the US market.
After all this?
That's hideous.

http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html

Rising oil (gas) prices and cheaper batteries will shift the market, but don’t hold your breath.

But wait, don't think the administration can do it, unless you think you would like living in Cuba.

Good spot sulleny, I meant independence!

Good spot too EP. Although your just susbscibing to the mainstream science dogma ;)

Let us eat until we all reach a rounded shape 6 x 6 (feet) to justify huge vehicles to move a single couple around, let alone round children.

Sitting side by side may no longer be possible unless we widen the vehicles and roads. All public transport vehicles (including passenger aircraft) will have to be modified soon to accomodate the 60% (oversized) that can't fit into 22 to 24 inch standard seats.

Unchecked obesity (and all its secondary effects) will eventually have more adverse consequences on our standards of living than we realize.

Our addiction to junk foods runs deeper than our addiction to oil.