Evolution of Environmentalism

What happens when previously radical or minority held views on the environment become main stream? Well you are seeing it happen right now. Let me start by admitting that his post is short on answers and full of observations. Environmental groups do everything in their power to bring their issues of choice into the spotlight. They hope for widespread attention to the issue and political action. But doesn't it seem like whenever this goal is achieved, the result seems to fall far short of what the initial goal was? By the time an issue makes it to the mainstream, it is simplified and packaged into a neat little press release. The complexity of the issue is lost, and any political action that follows is likely a band-aid. Is this strategic? Is that the only way to get anything done in our current system? dumb it down and make it look pretty and hope for the best? A "little steps" approach ? Perhaps if it were not for the simplification process, no progress would be made on the environmental front? I don't know. Environmentalists are accused of strategies like saving the old growth by finding an endangered species (spotted owl) as a tool. While the whole issue was divided into pro-logger or pro-spotted owl, many conservationists were more interested in all the old growth that was in play and many local loggers and communities were interested in the issue of long term economic stability of the timber industry if old growth forest management continued at this unsustainable rate of harvest. But not many people looked at the issue in those terms..it was easier to just be pro-job or pro-owl. So, the spotted owl basically won, but now half the country thinks the debate was actually about an owl vs. a job (simplification), when really it was a complex tug of war between short and long term economic issues, wilderness and ecology, with a dash of owl thrown in for drama. Every environmental issue has the opportunity to teach the uninformed and uninterested that there are no black and white issues and no easy answers, that when you hear owl vs. job...chances are that that is the tip of the iceberg, that sometimes saving an owl can create more or better jobs etc.. Instead, we end up with the polarized, black and white debate, with 10% of the folks engaged in the debate understanding the details, the ripple effect, the true economic effect etc. Look at global warming, in the last few years it's gone from periphery to front and center. In true American tradition, we will hit it hard in the press, put some compact fluorescent light bulbs in our house, maybe increase our nationwide mpg by 10%, and then we'll all forget about it, until we all clearly see 4 or 5 convincingly warmer seasons in a row...then..panic. Or maybe it will be the farmers who speak up? We always have a weak spot for the distressed farmer. Like I said, just observations here, I am void of answers on this issue...got any?