 |
 |
 |
|
|
        |
| |
|
|
|
The Debate Gets Civil: Romm Apologizes For Unfair Attacks
Rather than "debunk" this effort, we need to start dealing with the hard questions.
A controversial commentary in last week's Nature -- arguing that the
If you would stop with the hysterical character assassination and slander, we might actually be able to have a serious debate about the proper mix of pricing, regulation, and public investment in U.S. climate policy - one that might actually contribute to the policies that the next president and the next congress might actually enact. What ensued was the beginning of the level-headed, honest critique of each other's ideas -- what we had wanted to begin with. Romm responded, I think I have stopped calling you two "delayers" a while back. If not, I'm sorry. Anybody who supports Obama's plan is not a delayer. I disagree with some of the things you are doing -- and plan to point that out. It's time for the folks at Grist, Climate Progress, and Breakthrough to realize that we all have the same end goal in mind: a livable climate that can support the aspirations of human civilization. We have different ideas about how to get there, but Breakthrough is the first to acknowledge that our way isn't the one true way. There is no divine authority here, and an open conversation is the best chance we have at finding a way to success. Pielke and his coauthors have presented a series of important, honest questions for the environmental movement to grapple with. Rather than "debunk" this effort, we need to start dealing with these questions: Will carbon pricing be able to reduce emissions enough? Do we have all the technology we need? How much should we invest in clean energy? How much should go to development/demonstration/deployment? Here's hoping that we can put behind us the destructive attacks on the credibility and character of those who, in good faith and with the goal of protecting humanity and the planet, ask hard questions about how we are attempting to address the problem. We commend Romm's shift in tone and appreciate his apology and look forward to an open debate that focuses on these challenges. 3 COMMENTS: I think I speak for at least some readers besides myself when I say that this back-and-forth, finger-jabbing-chest arguing is getting very tiresome. I feel like I'm probably fairly representative of many of the readers on here--fairly aware and concerned with climate change, trying to better understand energy systems and emissions, and looking for a straight, lively discussion about solutions. Now because I have both of these sites feeding my RSS feed (I appreciate all sides of an discussion and try my hardest to navigate and best comprehend this issue, which is admittedly tricky for someone w/out years of experience in the energy field), I'll be posting this comment on both blogs. It does seem like all parties are at least somewhat responsible for keeping this "debate" from clearing out of the very clear personal contempt for one another, but we, as readers, beg that both sides recognize that this issue is more important than your respective egos. If the vitriol and personal attacks don't cease, you're only going to drive people away. Which would be a shame, as we are all quite concerned about the future of our climate, and would love to hear a reasonable debate/discussion about solutions. (I mean--unique posts dedicated to the immature framing of this "discussion?" How meta! And awful!) Please, please, please, clean it up and proceed with a mature and level tone. Joe, Michael and Ted– But you want to know what scares me to death? That people like you, whom people like me turn to for guidance, are wasting time calling each other names and then, even worse, are arguing about whether you’ve called each other names. We don’t have time for this! Honest to God, please. And if you are going to have pissing matches. Can you please have them in private where every member of the press can't read them? It’s a massive distraction. And besides it’s so boringly stereotypical of progressives to indulge themselves in public infighting. You guys should not be fighting a PR battle against each other but against Exxon. Be smarter about this, would you? When exchanging ideas publicaly do it in respectful ways. You don’t even really disagree that much. I don’t want to read in the Times about how people in the climate change camp are arguing with each other. I want to read about how they are working together to come up to integrate a lot of important ideas. If you guys can’t stop the name calling in public, then you know what? You are all delayers. You, too, Joe. All the best, Post a comment |
|
|
|
|||
Privacy : Contact : Site Map |
|||||||||
Joe did not actually apologize. He engaged in blog comments damage control. He was losing it, he finally realized he was losing it, so he put on his reasonable facade to save face in his own comment section. It is a tactic, not a deeply felt change of heart. He will naturally revert to form as a matter of course.
It is time for everyone in this ongoing debate-which-cannot-be-shut-down to relax, take a deep breath, and understand that there are many things you cannot control or put a good face on. Even some things you have said and done yourself.
Posted by: Al Fin at April 11, 2008 5:12 PM