In a riveting and, let's face it, disturbing documentary called Jesus Camp, a little girl exclaims her contempt for environmentalists by sardonically asking her church leader if environmentalists truly love trees more than God. Personally, this moment stuck out for me more than almost anything else in the film (a scene in which the children are praying before a cut-out of George. W. Bush comes in at close second), mostly because I do not think her image of the environmentalist movement is that far removed from the opinions of more mainstream Americans. For a long time now, environmentalist were considered leftists hippies, concerned with saving the trees and the jackrabbits at the expense of economic development and stability. Worse yet, the climate change alarmists wished to stymie the economy in large part because of what they feared from a presumed threat—a threat that the Bush Administration insisted was not scientifically validated just a short time ago. So in the nature of Shift Happening, I want to first off celebrate the changes that have occurred in the recent past to indicate that America is taking a more realistic view of these issues, and also to assure the unconvinced among us that, speaking as an environmentalist, I do believe it is possible to encourage economic prosperity in a balanced manner that keeps the needs of the planet in mind.

The logic behind our current Administration's inaction in regards to climate change, championed in part by the Skeptical Environmentalist himself Bjorn Lonberg, reasons that without absolute proof of a consequence (the altering of our climate) there is little reason to change our potentially destructive ways. This makes complete sense, in theory; why would we regulate what needs not be regulated because of the pessimistic musings of a few scientists? When the gun is jumped in this way, after all, someone must pay the price. This brings to mind, to use a local example, the ordinance issued in Burlington a few years ago, in reaction to a carbon monoxide poisoning, to put carbon monoxide detectors in all apartments across the city; no exception was made for apartments using exclusively electric power, in which carbon monoxide cannot be produced, and the burden of financing the detectors fell on the landlords. A knee-jerk reaction, especially without proper investigation, can certainly be detrimental to some. To Bjorn Lonberg and other skeptics, I say that, theoretically, their point is not such a bad one.

But in the real world, it is a decisively terrible point to make. Given the overwhelming evidence for humankind's impact on the environment, it seems that one would truly have to have their head in the sand to discount all that the scientific community, in almost universal agreement, has to say. I applaud, of course, skepticism in the face of the status quo--why else would I be writing for a secessionist paper? But on the other hand, given the potential side-effects of global climate change—mass draught, famine, starvation, disease, human conflict, etc—it seems apparent to me that it is well passed time for the the skeptics to take a much less dismissive tone in regards to this issue.

And, thankfully, it seems that many of them have. For years, the President refused to acknowledge that climate change even existed. In the face of reality, the administration finally changed positions, endorsing a report that links climate change to extreme weather. By no means does this step in the right direction warrant Mr. Bush a pat on the back; quite frankly, he deserves a kick in the pants or worse for his ignorant refusal to take climate change seriously for eight years of his rule. But now that this president has proclaimed his belief in climate change, other conservatives and skeptics may follow.

The realization that climate change means more than just funky weather patterns seems to have finally been recognized by other government agencies as well. A few weeks ago U.S. intelligence agencies released a report that pointed out some of the great national security threats posed by climate change. Sub-Saharan Africa, which stands to be the most devastated area of the globe, will suffer from mass crop failure and major water shortages, which will in turn spark land disputes and eventually war.

So climate change is a real phenomena now. But what is the government doing about it? The administration this week took a tough stance on the Clean Air Act, of all things, solidly rejecting proposed steps to lower the nation's output of harmful pollutants like carbon dioxide. A federal appeals court agreed with the utility industry that the E.P.A. had overstepped its authority in the creation of the Interstate Rule of 2005, which set new requirements for lowering the output of pollutants emitted by industries in the Eastern half of the United States. Later, the head of the E.P.A., Stephen L. Johnson, reinforced a stance of inaction by explaining that the E.P.A.--that's the Environment Protection Agency—has no intention of imposing any mandatory controls over carbon emissions across the country.

Meanwhile, scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, have a pool going amongst staff members this year, betting on whether the North Pole will melt out completely this summer, something that will be unprecedented. There are some upsides to this. Ships will be able to travel, for the first time in recorded history, through the Northwest Passage. And, most ironically of all, there is oil beneath the Arctic Ocean.

It would seem that, unlike other nations across the globe, many of which are taking climate change very, very seriously, it has fallen on the average citizen to make positive changes to better our environment and curb the U.S. trend of indulging in energy inefficient and waste-producing practices. And here in Vermont, entrepreneurs are doing just that—and proving that sustainability can make for great economic development in the process. The potential is quite extraordinary. If energy-efficient products are the wave of the future, if not for the sake of the environment than at least with high oil prices in mind, than it would seem that to capitalize on that need, for profit, for peace of mind, or for both, would indeed be the smart way to go. NRG Systems in Hinesburg, the flourishing statewide farmer's markets, and non-profits such as the new Green Mountain Carshare, which offers Vermonters with limited car needs occasional transport at a discounted fee, all stand as examples of sustainable, and sometimes profitable, green enterprises.

Perhaps the best example of “eco-capitalism,” however, is TerraCycle Incorporated, a business started by two young Princeton alums who make use of all natural worm waste to create their plant fertilizer. Not only does the company turn over great profits, but they manage to stand by a principle of sustinability throughout the production and distribution of their product. Even the bottles they package the fertilizer in are recycled; they literally use old soda bottles with their TerraCycle label stamped on instead of making new ones. This company has been featured in dozens of articles and interviews across the country for their innovation, and they are now carried in stores from Wal-Mart to Home Depot. Going green, in this respect, means real profits in addition to doing the right thing.

Thus my environmentalist message is a mixed one. Environmentalism is not just hugging trees; it is sound economic policy. It is recognizing the benefits of sustainable construction, and the short-sightedness, and long-term negative effects, of supporting unsustainable practices. It is seeing the real human cost of denial and of following the status quo, and acknowledging that not just future generations but our own will suffer from our negligence. It is understanding that despite how complicated the bureaucracy is, and how many special interests are involved, these issues really are not as complicated as they seem; the need for change is so dire that they cannot be. Finally, it is seeing that this is by no means a liberal, Democratic, or atheistic stance, but rather that being an environmentalist leaves room for everyone.