Okay, here’s the deal. I drive a Prius. Now before you go making a bunch of wild-eyed, crazy-assed assumptions, let me just say I make it a point never to shove it in anybody’s face. The car’s far too heavy for that sort of thing and it tends to leave axle grease all over you.

Also, despite what you may think, I'm not a vegan, I don't wear Birkenstocks and my car doesn’t have a John Kerry for President bumper sticker on it. Okay, in the spirit of full disclosure, I did briefly toy with putting one on but ultimately decided the gesture would be redundant and might possibly leave paper stuck to my car if and when I had to rip the damn thing off in disgust. (As for the bumper sticker, it now sits on my office’s mantel-of-shame, right next to my Dukakis-Bentsen pin. Sorry, but that’s what you get for not responding to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth sooner.)

I also wouldn’t describe myself as a hair-on-fire tree-hugger type. Concerned humanitarian and citizen of the world that I am, I believe that the environment’s in tremendous jeopardy and that anyone who tries to suggest that global warming isn't a real and urgent problem is, in my book, a moral dead-ender and just not very nice.

In addition, I’m also happy to admit that if someone happens to see me toodling around town in my hybrid -- and at 45 miles or so to the gallon, it’s safe to say I toodle and do so quite proudly -- I wouldn’t be upset if the sight of me in my weird little car made them consider even if just for a second the degree to which we’re fouling the planet or about the mess we’re leaving for future generations.

That being said, I didn’t buy the car to send a message, mostly because I don’t believe that’s how effective messages are sent. Seems to me that concern for the environment just hasn’t reached its tipping point, something that was driven home this morning when I saw the story on the front page of the LA Times about Gov. Schwarzenegger’s plan to spend billions of California’s tax dollars to promote the use of solar power. The article went on to say that the Governator was facing opposition from business lobbies, utilities, unions and consumer groups because of the plan’s high price tag and relatively low “bang-for-the-buck” quotient.

Well, at the risk of sounding naive, the idea seems like a no-brainer to me, particularly in light of another LA Times piece (and yes, weisenheimers, I do read other things but I was very busy with very important things this morning) in the very same edition that pointed out that Saudi Arabia is on the verge of depleting its oil reserves and will soon be experiencing a sharp decline in exports. Now, I’m sure the business lobbies and utilities and unions and consumer groups have a whole host of wonderfully terrific and thoroughly civic-minded reasons as to why we shouldn’t be moving forward with Arnold’s legislation but I’m sorry -- an inexhaustible, clean source of energy that helps wean us off our increasingly maniacal dependency on foreign oil? Puh-lease. This is exactly the kind of stuff we should be leaning into, not away from.

Unfortunately, it looks like until we get some real leadership on the issue in Washington (quick -- when was the last time someone in a position of power asked you to reduce your speed or lower your thermostat in an effort to reduce the nation's fuel consumption? 1973?) this country isn’t going to wake up any time soon to the brutal truth that terrorism isn’t the only threat to our way of life.