I appreciate the additional detail and clarification. Perhaps the most helpful thing this discussion does for us is to remind us that personal change is not sufficient, we also need to be politically active. (This is a point that has been made before on this site.) Nevertheless, I think Elise has a valid critique to make. The point is captured in contrast to your claim:

Jensen certainly does not 'criticize individual power' – in fact, he is a strong proponent of it – merely suggesting that political change comes, not surprisingly, by engaging with politics as opposed to purchasing recycled toilet paper.

The point is that, apparently, Jensen sees personal change in opposition to social or political change. In fact, in the quoted portion of this post, Jensen states, "Personal change doesn’t equal social change." On the one hand, of course it doesn't: the person is a part of the society. But, on the other hand, of course it does! Society is made up of persons. If those people, in some widespread or critical way change their lifestyles, habits, preferences, etc. then society does in fact change. This is what is sometimes called the "zeitgeist" or the spirit of the times. And as we have frequently discussed here at elephant, the only reason politicians act is because they feel pressure from the people. So if the people are clearly and decisively moving in a certain direction, then that will influence what happens at the political level.

This means that our personal lifestyle changes have to be coordinated with political action. It's not one or the other, but both. The social or political revolution is a tipping-point that emerges from a critical mass of individuals making their own personal changes.

The deeper point, it seems to me, is that Jensen appears happy to compartmentalize our personal decisions and detach these from our social, communal, or political actions. I am personally quite opposed to this way of thinking. The fact is that the future we seek is one that integrates personal needs, desires, and preferences with the good of humanity, the good of our neighbors, our society, our planet, etc. In other words, our actions have to be deeply integrated, not compartmentalized. They must be personal as well as political. That's the nature of the revolution I am seeking. This means reforming my consumer habits, my interpersonal relations, my home and my work as well as becoming politically active.

Jensen is not disparaging of individual change, nor is he suggesting that we not make individual changes, but that the current focus on shifting individual consumption patterns in order to influence the state of the world is bound to fail.

His central argument is that, in the face of the monumental challenges we are currently faced with, simply deciding to 'go green' is no substitute for political engagement. Especially when the overwhelming use of water (from which the headline comes) is by industry and agriculture, and the overwhelming majority of waste is produced by industry (and not, as we are led to believe, by individual consumers and municipalities).

Further, Jensen certainly does not 'criticize individual power' – in fact, he is a strong proponent of it – merely suggesting that political change comes, not surprisingly, by engaging with politics as opposed to purchasing recycled toilet paper.

There is nothing compelling or empowering at all in the author's comments that:

"Change rarely comes from the government. It takes far too much time for any legislation to become active and when it is finally implemented, the policy is only a guideline for behavior. Additionally, the government lives within the deep pockets of big business. How can we expect change to come from a body willing to be influenced by another entity?"

WTF? According to Thomas Jefferson:

"The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object."

And WHO is not 'influenced by another entity'? To suggest we should not expect change from a 'body' willing to be influenced by another entity is one short step back from suggesting that autocracy is more useful than democracy.

Cynicism about the current state of government negates the immense potential inherent in a democracy when citizens engage meaningfully and consistently with the political process – rather than throwing their hands in the air and declaring that 'it's all too hard'.

Political engagement gave you Obama. Revolution gave you the United States of America.

Jensen is opening an important discussion about the nature of democracy and stating, loudly and uncompromisingly, that driving a hybrid car, recycling or taking shorter showers, is a far cry from the Boston Tea Party this nation and the world at large seems to be in need of.