Why So Pessimistic?

I have noticed lately that with my increasing exposure to commentary on the current energy situation that many people greet the issue with pessimism, doubt, and sheer cynicism. I myself often fall victim to this attitude; I am skeptical about the potential we have for change, and about the likelihood of our successful escape from the crisis. I can't help but wonder, however, how heavily this pessimism is playing into our lack of success. If people were less overwhelmed by the direty of the situation, less hopeless about our future, and more aware of the possibilities for change, would there be more of an incentive to make one? If people knew that there really is still hope, that it isn't over yet, would they feel more compelled to act?

After reading the first portion of The End of Fossil Energy, I was blown away by Howe's cynicism and lack of hope. Howe seems authoritatively jaded on the subject of alternative energy; he certainly seems to be knowledgeable on the subject and well aware of our situation. However, I thought his book was meant to encourage people to act, and to enlighten people to how crucial acting really is in this situation. But after reading just the beginning of this book, I already feel overwhelmed and clueless. All he has done so far is list all of the mistakes we have made as a society, and how impossible it is going to be to rectifiy the problems we have created for ourselves. One portion of the text that really struck me was in Howe's discussion of the potential ethanol energy holds:
"Some think tanks like ILSR... argue that with modern methods, and if it's done just right, the energy output of ethanol and co-products is greater than the input. On the contrary, the recognized expert on the subject, Cornell University professor David Pimentel...has been teaching and writing for years that growing biomass for transportation fuel is absolutely faulty thinking."
In this example, Howe presents a possibility for hope, and then immediately shoots it down without any further acknowledgement. He chooses to believe and support the pessimistic view on things, without even acknowledging why the other view is impossible or less credible.
While I whole-heartedly understand and respect Howe's desire to educate the masses and get people involved in energy conservation, and I am amazed by his efforts to do so, I don't think that approaching the issue with a pessimistic attitude is necessarily the way to go. I understand that people need to know the facts, and that giving them false hope is just stupid, but I don't think overdramatizing the situation is ok either. I think people should be given the facts, but I don't think we need to be constantly reprimanded and beaten down for the mistakes that have already been made. If we have acknowledged that we messed up, and are already suffering enough from the consequences of our actions, what good is constantly badgering ourselves about them going to do? Once we know the situation, and understand its causes, we need encouragement and optimism to make a difference. People need to be given hope that there is potential for change, or nobody is going to try. If we don't think that we can make a difference, there's no incentive to make an effort. I think we have done the job of promoting the idea that we have failed at creating a sustainable environment, and now it is time to move on and actually make a change. Words are only so powerful; now we need to act.