“World War II would not have been won without home front actions that had both psychological and tangible impacts: ordinary people joining together to support the greater cause.” 

Foer establishes the foundation for his argument: Without collective action, we are doomed. He discusses the country-wide effort of individuals turning off their lights so that German and Japanese planes couldn’t see strategic sites. Even when it wasn’t necessary to turn off the lights in the middle of the country because the enemy war planes couldn’t fly that far inland, people in the Midwest turned off their lights. The point Foer makes is twofold: First, when everyone voluntarily sacrifices, their collective actions result in everyone winning. Secondly, even if your effort isn’t necessary, participation is a statement of solidarity and affords a positive psychological impact on the effort as a whole. By beginning with World War II and demonstrating the collective effort to win the war, Foer sets down the parameters of his belief that for us to do anything about climate change, we must do it collectively.

“That distance between awareness and feeling can make it very difficult for even thoughtful and politically engaged people—people who want to act—to act.” 

In this chapter, Foer uses the story of Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks to discuss what makes a good story and how a good story can mobilize people into action. A good story, Foer says, is one that can incite high emotion, outrage, and a desperate need to make change. The Claudette Colvin story wasn’t as powerful as Rosa Parks’ for the simple reason that Claudette Colvin lacked the same dynamic characteristics Rosa Parks possessed.