Why scaring us won't fix the environment (and what will) [Feature]

I recently read an article discussing environmental change, warning us that if we continue our current consumption and pollution habits, fifty years from now these changes will be irreversible.  So, what have we as humanity done to avert this crisis in the making?  Nothing we haven't been doing since the dawn of the 21st century: Recycle, scrubbers on smoke stacks, buying local, hugging trees and whatnot.

So where do we go from here?  Well, here's the problem with using these watered-down scare tactics to get people to go green... They don't work.  If people truly feared for the environment, everyone would recycle, and we would turn all of the Hummers into green houses.  But we haven't.  For whatever reason, be it Americans love for their flat screens and Big Macs or the Chinese need for mass production, we cannot expect humanity to do what scientists consider is best for the environment.  Instead, we have to trick them into doing it.

Volkswagen recently sponsored an experiment called The Fun Theory.  The idea is pretty simple:  Can we get people change their behavior for the better by making things more fun?  Their diverse ideas including converting stairs into a piano and making recycling an arcade game, all to make us take the stairs or recycle.  If one were to ask Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, authors of Freakonomics, how to get people to better care for the environment, they'll answer in the same way The Fun Theory did, and they'll say the same things I'm about to.  

The trick is to provide an incentive to change our behavior.  Businesses do it every day with coupons, buy one get one free sales, and other marketing schemes.  The reason that works is because we save money, and this is especially effective due to the collective fear of what may continue to be a struggling economy.  Why don't we buy electric cars?  We know they're good for the environment, and most blue-collars would do anything to stick it to the lumbering oil conglomerates, but we don't.  And why is that?  The short is answer is because they cost too much.  The long answer is because the rent is too damn high.

So how do we promote clean energy and help Captain Planet do his thing?  We as the American people- and even as earthlings- have to overcome one of the most difficult obstacles we have ever faced:  We have to convince the government to pass a law.  And not some more EPA stuff, but financial law.  And maybe I have a few ideas as to what could be done.

Subsidies.  Ok, maybe one idea.  Oh, and tax breaks.  That makes two.  The government currently publicly subsidizes nuclear power.  Perfect, because a 2011 Union of Concerned Scientists report states that it would not be viable without subsidies.  We know that subsidies work to get businesses started.  And because I'm just a lowly journalist, I don't have a comprehensive report on what specifically needs to be done in order to save the environment, but I'm sure someone does.  And anything that needs to be done can be achieved through subsidized programs, for example, the government buying scrubbers for a company.  That way the buying business doesn't lose money, and the people that make scrubbers make a profit.  The economy maintains growth, and the environment is a little better off.

Tax breaks can work in a similar manner.  Let's say I can provide proof that I recycled my IBC root beer bottles this week.  If I can provide proof that I did it (i.e. a receipt, just like one would get when donating to Goodwill), then I can get a tax break for it.

Obviously this is a very small-scale idea, but the implications of it can make a huge difference, especially when properly executed.  Which, when leaving it in the hands of Congress, may mean enough pork to cause an environmental apocalypse.