What does your rule say about providing people with the info they need, in order to make an informed decision?

> other forces will be more powerful than changing minds. Prices, for instance.

Sadly, no, not enough. How does laissez faire incorporate greenhouse gas emissions into prices? Plus the lag time is huge - we’ve still got as much temp rise in the pipeline as we’ve experienced in the last 100+ years. This isn’t “turn on a dime” stuff AT ALL.

and initially, those who suffer will be far away, and we’ve already shown our capacity for courage in the face of pain felt by strangers.

We need Journalism That Matters. On this issue, we haven’t had it.

In this case my own rule — do not try to change people’s behaviors or even their opinions — requires me to say that you may be right and exhortation is necessary and perhaps principally necessary to bring about the changes to ameliorate global warming.

I do continue to suspect that other forces will be more powerful than changing minds. Prices, for instance. As gasoline rise up that prompts many behavior changes that has nothing to do with belief.

But stick to your guns and to your approach because, as I must admit, you could be entirely correct.

Tom

“At its worst, making saving the world a personal responsibility drives green posturing that’s both meaningless and annoying. But even at it’s best — even when we focus on taking the personal actions that are both actually within our power and at least somewhat effective — it is woefully insufficient. As Bill Rees (the inventor of the ecological footprint measurement) says, “We’re all on the same ship and what we do in our individual cabins is of almost no consequence in terms of the direction the ship is going.”

To effect systemic change you need political will. To get political will you need an informed citizenry. To build an informed citizenry you can’t just tell them “here’s what’s true”, you need to help them eject what *isn’t* true - you need to explain that half of what you fed them in the last 20 years was disinformation.

(I don’t think you understand just how ignorant and misinformed the public still is, on the state of the science - I bet even in SF. Try striking up a few random conversations & you’ll see.)

> I did scan Kirsch’s piece

Scan?
If print doesn’t speak to you, please watch John Doerr’s talk. You cover business, Doerr funds it; you ought to be able to relate to him.

> My preference is direct action as in plant a tree, reduce my personal use of energy. I have a limited interest in changing other people’s behaviors. Too hard.

Sometimes the things that need to be done *are* hard. Often they aren’t what we’d prefer them to be. Believe me, I know, and I sympathize.

but that doesn’t let us off the hook.

> Why bother is my thought?

I take it you didn’t read Steve Kirsch’s piece. “In short, at the rate things are going, there is more than a 5% chance that human beings might be extinct (or nearly extinct) in less than 100 years from now. The current best estimate is that it will take somewhat longer than that.”

Got kids?

I remember – and still read occasionally – your “Seems To Me” columns. Especially since I’ve been researching back issues for a book.

And I well know how people can extract bizarre interpretations from one’s writing. Sometimes it seems they think you mean anything and everything but what you intended to say.

Glad you’re still out there writing.

Kevin