The news media have gotten greener, and that's good. Scientific evidence of ominous climate change is now so strong that even many of the most diehard global-warming deniers — such as President Bush and the editorial writers of The Wall Street Journal — have begun to back away from previous "no problem" stances.

As of Jan. 20, we'll have a president who actually pays attention to what Al Gore has dubbed an inconvenient truth. Maybe some significant federal action, rather than just stonewalling and vetoing, is just around the corner. Fierce disputes over policy options are on the horizon, though, as the question of what to do about global warming takes center stage.

Whether in local newspapers or on network news, media coverage has suitably heightened public concern. You might say that consciousness has brought a light shade of green to the public square. But awareness doesn't necessarily lead to commensurate action.

For many, at this point, green is a matter of planetary survival. But it's also a matter of fashion, which can be fickle to the point of extreme unreliability. When gas prices plunge — or when an economic recession gets spun as a reason to slam the brakes on visionary green proposals — the media politics of the country could reframe an imperative as a luxury we can't afford after all.

That's a danger we now face, from local elected bodies to the federal government. And — as the current economic crisis reshapes the country's media ambience and political atmosphere — the special-interest efforts to undermine our chances for a green-policy future are not the only pressures that must be resisted.

We also need to become more candid with ourselves — and more willing to enliven the media discourse — about the murky implications for economic equity that are now present in many green agendas.

The United States and the rest of the world desperately need to pull out of a nosedive that is largely the result of staggering burdens — namely, chronic pollution that is destroying the environment and economic injustice that is widening the imbalances of human well-being.

Pulling out of the nosedive will require a dual commitment: to a future of environmental protection and social justice. Viable solutions will need both wings to fly.

Media treatment has tended to compartmentalize "issues." We hear little about the intersections of powerful vested interests that have been keeping greenhouse gas emissions too high and wages too low. Such results have in common the corporate quests for profits that supersede other considerations — like harmful effects on the ecology of this planet and harmful effects on the lives of workers as well as their families.

With a shortage of media coverage that probes the depths of economic power in our midst, the underlying dynamics that have a multiplicity of effects are apt to stay submerged. Meanwhile, we routinely float along the surface of media, overwhelmed by a panorama of roiled waters but scarcely catching a glimpse of what's churning underneath.

Whether the subject is the ecology or the economy — whether the problem is global warming or financial crumbling — questions about power and vulnerability should be central to the mix. A news outlet may not be inclined to explore those questions, but they are still vital to understanding why the current threats to the future are so severe.

And until we can ask and answer those questions in candid ways, the chances of a green or equitable future are exceedingly slim.

So, the green hue of media coverage that has grown more pronounced in 2008 is something to celebrate — but it's just a start.

Norman Solomon is author of "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." The book has been adapted into a documentary film of the same name. For information, go to: www.normansolomon.com.