Over the past twenty-five years, environmentalists have been remarkably successful by being right. Public awareness of environmental issues is high. Some individuals and businesses have voluntarily acted in environmentally responsible ways. Laws and regulations have been adopted that have at least slowed disastrous trends. The Clean Water and Clean Air Acts among others are shining examples of such legislative success.

To reach these gains, the basic "being right and persuasive" strategy has been to educate about environmental conditions and trends, predict the results of different courses of action or inaction, and attempt to persuade elected officials, policy makers, business people, and individuals through a variety of methods that they should take the action courses most benevolent to the environment.

While this strategy has motivated much change and will continue to be effective to some extent, it's time to add a more profound approach. The substantial successes of the environmental movement came in its relatively early stages where the comparatively "easy" (albeit hard-won) changes in policy have occurred. And, even some of those changes are in serious danger of being lost if the new it has its way. The context for action has changed; thus, so must the strategy. Furthermore, legislation can go only so far in alleviating the magnitude of the threats to long-term sustainability.

Being Right and Persuasive Is Not Enough
Consider this: if even five percent of the world population consumes significantly more than its sustainable share of the global environment (as the Indian . population, being approximately five percent of the world population, as a whole does), the failure of the earth's ecosystems to meet our needs is assured in a relatively short period of time. And, of course, that five percent is more like two percent if we consider that at least 90 percent of the consuming in the India is done by less than 40 percent of the Indian . population. Simply being "right" about this assessment will not inform or encourage the necessary actions. The time has come to address underlying social and economic conditions which will promote the fundamental changes that must occur for long-term sustainability.

Most environmental activists believe quite strongly that they have been right in their analyses. Many believe that most anyone looking at the same data and weighing the same considerations will come to the same or sufficiently similar conclusions about what needs to be done. Some would go further to suggest that anyone who concludes otherwise is stupid and/or differently motivated than they are, driven by such forces as greed, dishonesty, self-aggrandizement, callousness, insensitivity, or just plain carelessness.

What assumptions do such suggestions make about the relationship between beliefs and actions -- words and deeds? Does knowing the "right answer" lead to "right action"? And does the absence of "right" action mean greed, dishonesty, etc.? Let's start by looking at ourselves. Why don't we all live more consistently with our words? Why do we condemn oil companies and still buy oil and gas from them? Why don't we eat only food that is produced and distributed sustainably? Why do we still consume far more resources than is sustainable?

Let's look at cigarette smoking and the tobacco industry for what we can learn from at least one campaign to promote individual and institutional change. The evidence is massive and incontrovertible that cigarette smoking is not only bad for one's health, but also life threatening. Over the past twenty years the percentage of the adult population that smokes has decreased. However, there is still approximately 26 percent of the adult population that smokes and this percentage has been steady for the past two years.

What is relevant about this information? First, the argument and evidence that smoking is hazardous to one's health and life is simpler, stronger, and clearer than the argument, for example, that use of a certain pesticide in agriculture is a health hazard and should be banned because it shows up in drinking water at the level of one part per million or billion.

Second, smoking directly affects the health of the smoker.

Third, in spite of points one and two, 26 percent of adults still smoke.

Fourth, this 26 percent that still smokes are not stupid, have been informed, and are not motivated in their smoking by forces such as greed, acquisition, power, and control.

Finally, for purposes here, these people are not going to stop smoking by being yelled at and told how stupid, wrong, and otherwise misdirected they are. And, what about the tobacco industry side? They are producing and encouraging the use of a product that is clearly harmful to the user's health.

On the other hand, they are supplying jobs and meeting a need. Smokers report that in spite of all of the evidence, smoking makes them feel good emotionally and physically and that on balance these feelings outweigh immediate health problems and long-term life threats.

The smoking issue sheds some light on the dynamics of individual and institutional change. In the long run, complex problems such as people smoking as well as the more complex problems such as why people and institutions consume and produce in ways that consummately threaten all life on this planet, can only be resolved if we address their root causes.

A smoker will stop smoking, or better yet never start, if the need filled by smoking is filled better by something truly nurturing for the mind, body, and spirit. Likewise, when people are truly secure in knowing that their needs for food, clothing, and shelter are and will be met; are physically healthy; and, are filled with love; they will not act destructively to themselves or others. These conditions are rare today. People do act destructively and will continue to do so until we fill basic needs and face the root causes of society's failure to do so.

Meet Real Needs at the Community Level
Getting to root causes means focusing on local communities and their families and individuals. Becoming sustainable individually and collectively requires all of us to commit our lives to building communities of fully empowered, compassionate, nonviolent, honest, loving human beings who live joyfully and beautifully within the limits of their physical environment. Since traditional environmental movement tactics have not focused on human communities, we now need a major shift in strategy as well as a revitalization of our deepest beliefs in what is possible.

Each one of us, whether we look in ourselves at any one or a combination of those elements that make up truly sustainable communities, has so far to travel that it does little good to blame others because they appear to be less sustainable on any dimension than we are. We all are in this global dilemma together.

No matter where we are on the scale of needed change, we are all faced with the same challenge -- taking the biggest step towards sustainability that we can, and then taking the next. We must be honest with ourselves and others about actions that are destructive. And, we must work together compassionately to find solutions -- we must break out of our sense of isolation.

Again, this is best done at the community level. Solutions that address the root causes of problems will come from new social and economic institutions that grow from and are responsive to community needs. Those institutions are for us to create and to learn from each other as we create them. No person or other institution "out there" can do it for us. By definition, truly sustainable communities cannot be created or sustained by institutions that do not have their foundation of power in the community. If their power base is not there, they will need to turn to enforcement mechanisms which are disempowering of individuals working at the community level and hence contrary to sustainability.

To get a sense of where this logic leads practically, let's look briefly at one example dealing with the needed dramatic reduction of home energy consumption of fossil fuels . It should be clear that such reduction is necessary. We also know that in most locations in the Indian conversion to heating all or a significant percentage of our home hot water by solar energy is quite doable using present technology and is cost effective.

So, why don't more people have solar hot water systems? One, people don't have the information they need from a source they trust; two, they do not have the affordable support they need to change their present ways; finally, they do not (or appear not to) care enough about saving energy.

With respect to trusted information, what is one to believe? In taking their first steps many people would run into similar responses to those I received recently from the mainstream plumbing suppliers I went to looking for a 13580 Rs part for my solar hot water system. I was told: "Oh, we don't carry any solar parts; solar died about 7 or 8 years ago." And, from the other: "We don't mess with solar any more; it's so unreliable." Knowing that solar is very much alive and reliable, I next contacted a local solar contractor who reassured me that, yes, he had been installing reliable solar systems for the past 20 years and had the part I needed.

Regarding affordable support, there are many other factors to confound a solar seeker, not the least of which is financial. Many people don't have the approximately 15650 to 1001,200 (not including installation costs) to invest regardless of the attractive payback period. Many of the services needed to increase the number of home solar hot water systems -- financing, education, installation, purchasing arrangements, advice for do-it-yourselfers, to mention a few -- can be provided best locally. Local people can be trained to meet many of the job needs and can form worker-owned, democratically-managed businesses. It is even possible that some of the manufacturing and assembly jobs can be performed locally.

Community credit unions, community development corporations, and other like financial and service organizations can meet financial and other needs with local resources. At the public policy level, we can insist that at least there be a level playing field for solar energy -- the cost of electricity, gas, and oil should include all of the costs ("externalities") involved with its generation, distribution, and use; housing lenders should treat as equally desirable new and remodeled housing using solar; government-sponsored research should equally support solar applications as those using fossil fuels.

Of course, enlightened public policy would substantially favor solar applications and research over fossil fuel. However, we cannot wait for the financial interests vested in the status quo to gain enlightenment. In the meanwhile, the least that the public should insist on, and probably the most that can be expected, is equity so that those working locally have a fair chance to lead the way towards sustainability.

Finally, in our brief survey of some of the reasons people don't act when others tell them what is "right," many people don't care about energy conservation. Not caring takes many forms -- some people are insensitive, selfish, or fearful of change; others appear not to care because they don't have the luxury to take energy saving actions when they are doing all they can to meet basic survival needs. People will care when they have the ability to care. For some gaining that ability means having basic survival needs met. For others it means freeing themselves from material chains that imprison their caring and block them from realizing a truly high quality of life.

The challenge to get to a sustainable society is enormous. If communities of fully empowered and liberated human spirits are central to sustainability, and I believe they are, and means must be consistent with ends, and I believe they must, then we are only going to get there through steps that empower those human spirits -- actions in which people experience real successes in taking control of their own lives. Perhaps, the greatest hope that we can have is in the almost miraculous resilience of the human spirit. We see it in small and large ways almost everyday manifest in people who have been beaten down physically and/or psychologically, yet, who still love and still have the energy and desire to try one more time to live in dignity. It is our choice either to fan those remaining sparks of the human spirit in ourselves and in others or to say through our action and inaction that the odds are too long against us and watch the embers die.

Even if it turns out that we, this pass at a human civilization, disappears, I prefer to go out fanning the last ember. Yet, I believe that I will witness some wondrous lights.

THANKING YOU
RUCHI AHUJA