I tend to comment quite often not from a perspective of what I want to happen, but from one where I see the greatest likelihood of actual results. I've lived thru a disappointing adult life in terms of where my country's gone, and therefore try to keep in mind that we have what we have to work with here in terms of public attitudes. It's a huge country. It's great to rally to the cause of the few, but the will of the many is not easily bent to those causes. A different psychology is needed to get the attention of the greater population than a radical assault sometimes. In the case of a cleaner, more sustainable environment, there has been progress in shifting public awareness away from the Reagan mentality and towards the Gore mentality.
But if the public is pushed too fast and perceives that the government is going to radically restructure their lives, they will bite back via the democratic tools at their disposal.

No, of course it won't. Because it's one thing to make hypotheticals about drastically restructuring an entire society from a top-down position of authority, even if the intent is benign, and another to commit to such a thing. These sort of austerity plans can get ugly, as China knows.

I'm very certain that the neo-totalitarianism that would be required to take away people's lifestyles so dramatically would not even serve to see your ideals thru, anyway- regimes that use a heavy hand are unlikely to be environmentally conscious, as witnessed by anyone from the old Eastern Block, or anyone living in an authoritarian society today.

We all know what happens when the world undergoes disruptions- it's very painful. Sitting on the sidelines and arguing best-case scenarios is useful, I don't deny that. But many positions in a democracy have to be hashed out. Yeah, it's very messy, inefficient, and often even backwards form of government, but it does represent the will of all the people, which is ideologically allied with the principles of human rights.