Being 'Green' is an interesting experience.  On one side you have the facts of climate change, species extinction, water shortages and air pollution. On the other side you have the feeling that it is the right thing to do - be it a spiritual connection to the earth or a simpler emotional response to the issue.

This seems to be one reason environmentalism is so disjointed. Those who stick to the science think the emotional members are clouding the issue and giving the movement a granola/crunchy easily dismissed name. 

Those with stronger emotional/spiritual focus think the science folks are a bit uptight and repressed and need to get out more.

The question is which one better represents the world as we know it?

The way I see it, The linear, absolute, truth aka facts the basis for sustained and lasting action.  By understanding the problems and causes we can start to, and hopefully succeed, in reversing or mitigating the effects mankind has had on the planet. 

It also makes a case for those whose have little emotional attachment to the earth: Money. While it will cost us a lot to address the years of dumping, tossing and polluting, it will cost more not to.  The 5 trillion dollar expected price tag to the US eastern seaboard alone if sea levels rise even a fraction of the predictions should motivate.  The health, food and water issues predicted will cost even more. So unless you believe that you are going to shuffle off your mortal coil soon and don't care what happens to your kids - this too can be a motivating argument.

On the other side are the arguments your kids bring to you and lets face it, they are right.  It is not fair. It is unjust.  It sucks.  The earth is this amazing, creative interconnected eco-system and we are ruining it.  How come they are never going to see a glacier in Glacier National Park? (will they change the name?)  The feeling of being connected to the earth is often lost in the rat race.  For those who stay connected to the beauty, power and wonder of nature, it is an overwhelming argument for doing everything in our power to save it. 

For those on the extreme sides of these arguments, they may never meet and perhaps will continue to annoy each other for ever.

As an avid back country enthusiast, I straddle these worlds.  I think it sucks that I stumble onto areas that were clear cut and not even logged.  Pollution, disregard for animals, plants, fish, and everything between is not a valid exchange for a few dollars.  I feel at home and connected in the high country in a way I never feel in the city. On the other hand I understand both the bottom line and the scientific arguments and directions.

Both of these views are right.  They frustrate each other, but think how they annoy the hell out of the non-believers who, lets face it, are burying their heads in the sand.  The science, the spiritual and the emotional arguments are all justifiable.  The science is clear enough to push business and government (or should be) and the emotional connection to the earth and the future should help convince others.

So now we all believe, get out and start doing something about it. Call the congress people and senators. Call the President, lobby businesses you frequent, clean up your own act.  No one can do this for you, so lets get our emotionally rationalist butts in gear.