Why?
Simply because I feel it is the wrong argument.
As any ethicist or theoretician will tell you – it is easier to prove what exists than what doesn’t. The proof of the cause of global warming will always be elusive despite the slick presentations of Al Gore and others -there are just too many variables.
For my mind the campaign should be based on two things we can prove:
• As a race we use and engage in a lot of stuff we don’t need to, and
• The resources we consume to produce those goods or services are not used wisely
The current ploys are based largely on fear and bludgeoning, not very 21st century at all.
How much more progress would we make if the focus was on educating people about proper use and alternatives, and educating industry about production and scarcity? No one could argue with either platform, and the academics might be engaged in practical science rather than speculation in the guise of science. Further this would mean we don’t automatically penalise emerging economies and create artificial and somewhat cynical trade barriers.
Of course Global Warming is not alone in this. We often find ourselves campaigning on the wrong road because we didn’t check the alternatives, or we just did what everyone else seemed to be doing. James Surowiecki’s book the The Wisdom of Crowds
How can we avoid the trap of the wrong argument?
Clearly there will be many alternatives but some thoughts to get you started:
- If the program isn’t paying dividends go back to the drawing board.
- If the solution isn’t obvious, maybe you’ve asked the wrong question.
- If your staff turnover is high, I’ll tell you now it is not the staff who are at fault.
- Do you cut costs or increase revenue? (The answer is both but many try to only cut costs).
Check your reasoning and make sure you’re having the right arguments.
cROADWORKS 