I have struggled for some time with the idea that we need to be perfect to advocate change. This idea often comes up when we talk about the need for climate action. Often, the discussion degrades rapidly into accusations of hypocrisy.
"If you drive a car, or heat your house, or use synthetic fabrics, or any other technology, then you are a hypocrite and do not have the right to to advocate for climate action."
It is easy to take the emotional bait. We feel guilty, try to justify ourselves, and regain our composure, usually by trying to convince the other guy that we have the moral credentials to make our case.
The whole business is a sham. When we take the bait, the topic changes. We are no longer discussing climate change. Rather, we are talking about ourselves. The topic becomes about me. The whole debate goes off the rails, and there is no further discussion. This is the point, I think.
More Posts by Joel
Today I want to share four observations about crisis, response and recovery. It has be a surreal couple of weeks. Before this, if you had told me we could essentially shut down the world in under a week, I would have laughed at the idea. But that just happened. It’s like a Tom Clancy novel just became reality....
In this video I reflect on moving the goalposts in climate argument, or, as I have learned, one sure way to get nowhere fast.
This pops up everywhere, in our relationships, at work, and in politics. So, it should come as no surprise when we see it in climate discussions.
Moving the goalposts happens when somebody changes the conditions of an argument to avoid being wrong....
In this video, I discuss circular reasoning in climate argument.
Circular reasoning is so common that I actually struggled to find examples. So many circular arguments have become common belief, we are blind to them. We accept them as gospel truth. But once I saw the light, I see it everywhere....
About the Author
President & CEO
Joel is an engineer and risk management specialist with over forty years of professional practice.