Joely, I agree with you on a lot of levels. "Refreshing" was just the word I was hoping to apply to Van Jones. And, Jordan, while I tend to agree with you that American's are self-serving, I think that you might have failed to see the bigger picture that Friedman addressed in even his first couple of paragraphs. For some people it's not that they would rather spend their money on new cars and a more brightly colored ipods, it's that they would rather spend their money on food, and put their efforts into making sure their kids grow up safe and with a better education. Everyone faces problems in their life, some more often and more grave than others. You can't expect a family who's parents work one or more full time jobs, and who's children walk to school in fear of others in their neighborhood, who can't afford medicare or heat in the winter to truly care about the polar bears. At the same time, I don't think you're going to find an avid environmentalist with even half of these problems. Worrying about the environment is a almost a luxury awarded to those who don't have to worry about from where their children will be getting their next meal. Basic needs of shelter, safety, and health need to be met before people can progress their interests to the bigger picture of politics or the environment.
This is why I think that Van Jones' ideas could revolutionize the way in which we think about the environment. He promotes a means of addressing the economic and social needs of people that would directly involve them in aiding the environment. He's not running about saying that people will only lend a hand if they can get a job or two out of it, he simply understands that people need to satisfy these needs before they can care about anything else. It's smart, revolutionary, and promotes the concept that we can all make a difference. People won't put their lives on hold for the environment, and Van Jones, by linking the two with his 'elegant solutions', can do a lot of good on both planes.