Can four years of a bad – okay, really, really terrible – US president explain our complacency in the midst of environmental crisis? Eighty percent of the world’s old growth forests have been destroyed. Our ocean ecosystems are in rapid decline. Current species extinction rates rival those of the five greatest mass extinctions. Scientists predict that if current trends continue, we could experience catastrophic climate change within our lifetimes.

For many issues, it’s relatively easy to take meaningful action with minimal impact on our lives. If we oppose the Iraq war, we can donate to nonprofit groups, sign petitions, contact elected officials, write letters to the editor, or participate in protests. We need to do all of these things to protect the environment, too. But genuine environmental progress also requires a fundamental shift in the way we live. As Jim Merkel notes in Radical Simplicity, “Getting specific about sustainability tends to make people sweat, as they dig deep into ethical reserves.”

Take climate change. After years of phony science that distracted the public and stalled action, even President Bush and the head of Shell Oil admit that global warming is real. So what are we willing to do to stop it? Here’s where we have to look within. Are we willing to sell our car and walk or bike to work and the local store? To wait for a bus in rainy weather? Are we willing to fly less, sacrificing a bit of the mobility we consider a right? Are we ready to do without foods grown or processed halfway around the world? Are we ready to replace our three-bedroom, two-bathroom homes with compact, energy-efficient living spaces that meet our basic needs for shelter and comfort?

So far, our actions indicate either a resounding no or widespread denial. There were, without doubt, many small victories for the planet in 2004. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, banning the production and use of some highly-toxic chemicals, became legally binding. If the Kyoto Protocol is approved by the Russian Parliament, the treaty will become international law, setting greenhouse-gas emissions targets for developed nations.

Rainforest Action Network, a small US nonprofit, convinced Citigroup and Bank of America, two of the world’s largest banks, to adopt groundbreaking new environmental policies. Electronics giant Samsung committed to phase out hazardous chemicals. Monsanto suspended efforts to develop its genetically-engineered Roundup Ready wheat. In India, the Supreme Court ordered $325 million to be paid immediately to survivors of the 1984 Union Carbide gas leak in Bhopal. In Australia, a grassroots campaign led by two Aboriginal elders forced the government to abandon plans for a nuclear waste dump in the outback. These victories, and others like them, demonstrate the creative and inspiring environmental activism taking place around the world. But will we take the urgent and decisive action needed to bring our planet back from the edge of collapse? We must all dig deep to find the answer.

Laura Fauth