I got into a discussion with a libertarian recently, however, about how rather than expect the government to do something about global warming and energy consumption, we should have faith in the individual consumer to make smart decisions about the environment and energy efficiency because it is not in anyone's interest to do anything harmful to our environment.

Which lead me to explain the psychological principle of "Diffusion of Responsibility," the theory that the willingness of an individual within a group to assume responsibility is inversely proportional to the size of the group.

Teachers deal with this every day; you can ask a simple question to a classroom full of 30 students and not a single student will answer.  It's not because the 30 students are stupid and don't know the answer; they very likely all know the answer, but because each student assumes that one of the other 29 students will volunteer to answer the question, in the end no one will.  In small group discussions, students are more-likely to share their answers with the rest of their group, and if a teacher calls on a student to answer a question, because he belongs to a group of one he will assume responsibility for knowing the answer by default.

This relates to the topic of global warming because when it comes to our world-wide carbon footprint, we're suddenly part of a group of several billion people.  Probably 20% of us think that Global Warming is a huge problem and we're doing everything we can to stop it.  Another large percentage of us don't believe in Global Warming and so won't do anything about it.  But the majority of people recognize that yes, Global Warming exists, and yes, it's a problem, but they diffuse their own responsibility by assuming that someone else in the several-billion-person group is going to solve it for them.  Consequently, people are hesitant to step up and assume the individual responsibility that David Campbell writes about so well.

What it all comes down to is this: leadership matters.  We should all do our part to address Global Warming and reduce our carbon output, but we absolutely must elect leaders who will help move the rest of the nation towards a more-responsible approach to how we manage our energy consumption.

I have no illusions that a handful of people making voluntary changes to their lives is going to make any difference at all.  It serves as an examine to anyone else who might care to look, but most people don't.

The hardest one for most people is giving up meat.  I was talking with someone the other day who came out of the blue (after consuming some steak) and said something like "I don't see how being a vegetarian can possibly be healthy."  The gist of his argument was that since it tastes good, it therefore must be healthy or some such.  By that logic, I suppose we ought to all go out and get hooked on crystal meth.

My view is that many of these changes will be forced upon us by sharply higher energy costs.  Those of us that are "early adopters" can serve as an example to the rest when the status quo becomes unaffordable.

can be an influence for healthy diets. Example: Doctors tell those suffering from renal failure, i.e., kidney disease, to stop eating meat, especially red meat--- and there are millions of those with kidney disease in America. Just think, if every one of them laid off the redlblooded diet what a difference it would make.

As for me, I'm giving up Beefeater's Gin.

to my girlfriend for dinner.  Very convenient - not too far.  But that idea went over like a lead balloon.  She wanted to go to a ribs place instead..

reviewer is a self-described carnivore, and he loved it!