A Sunday New York Times article titled Buying into the Green Movement would seem to suggest that the Green Movement won’t serve us in the end with the approach we are taking. That it’s not enough. And that we are going about it all wrong. In fact, it reminds us suspiciously of the environmental movement before Death of Environmentalism, when it was de rigueur to criticize instead of empower and encourage. The article and its band of un-merry critics, including Alex Steffen of World Changing, Chip Giller of Grist.org, Paul Hawken and Michael Ableman, argue that we need to do more than buy green and incur no sacrifice. They suggest that it’s not enough to buy green because it feels good, and that we need to feel some pain and understand the implications of our intent. We can think of three points to make.

First, where did they get the idea that there was even enough of a movement into the mainstream of green to presume that a significant proportion of people could actually differentiate between the feel good of green versus the hard work required of green? The numbers just aren’t there in any shape. Just because the cover of every magazine has announced the green wave does not mean that mainstream America has arrived. (Haven’t we learned yet not to trust the media?) The truth is that yes, it is on a lot of people’s radar, but egg’s research indicates that while there has been a jump in Core Green Advocates (those for whom altruism speaks as loud or louder than self-interest), it still remains low at less than 20% of the population. The rest is sniffing around green just trying to understand whether it’s changed much since the 60’s and whether they can trust it.

Second, our primary research at egg on the conscious consumer, synthesized with all of the current secondary data, including Hartman’s recent very good study, indicates strongly that most conscious consumers enter into green when triggered by something that makes them aware of issues of concern surrounding their personal, then social, and finally, environmental health — in this order. Once on this “path to sustainability” consumers become gradually more and more aware of the issues in their entirety, as well as in their interconnectedness. All of which suggests that it is no quick and fast path at all, but rather one that average people will ease into and have to become comfortable with in their own time and pace. If the movement or anything about green bites back at them, they are likely to turn against it. While green is enjoying a soft attractive luster and requires little sacrifice at this point, it nonetheless allows for some traction, which we desperately need.

Our understanding at egg also indicates that people crave information, as they admittedly are unfamiliar enough with the issues. (While we may all know the meaning of carbon offsets, food miles, and ecological footprint, the vast majority of Americans do not.) So the theory might go, as we gain their trust, we can pull them in ever so gradually with informative communications that doesn’t preach but rather raises awareness, in a non-condescending manner.

Third, don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. The very fact that we are talking about green at all is a great step forward. (Four years ago, when we started egg, many thought we were bonkers.) So, now that we’ve moved from bleeding edge to cutting edge, please let’s try and get this to the dull edge. Having green become a cost of entry would be a huge success. Why criticize the movement now with windpower in the sails, just because the public isn’t informed enough to know that they supposedly need to do more, faster, with more intent, purpose and gravity–and dare we say it, sacrifice. Let’s encourage these people, not find fault. The greens have long been known for their death-of-the-party moods and holier-than-thou sermons. And where did it get them? To the well earned and positively received, Death of Environmentalism, which killed the movement and then resuscitated it from the grave, helping get us in part to the point where we’re even having this conversation today. (So perhaps they’re onto something after all.)

So thank you Michael Shellenberger, who co-penned the article and who is a partner at American Environics, a market research firm in Oakland, Calif. And nota bene the close of the article where Mr. Shellenburger points out how recent focus groups of green consumers indicated their very realistic take on the whole green thing. “We didn’t find that people felt that their consumption gave them a pass, so to speak,” Mr. Shellenberger said. “They knew what they were doing wasn’t going to deal with the problems, and these little consumer things won’t add up. But they do it as a practice of mindfulness. They didn’t see it as antithetical to political action. Folks who were engaged in these green practices were actually becoming more committed to more transformative political action on global warming.”

C’mon guys. Give green a chance.