Andrew Kerins’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Numbers schnumbers...

  I truly appreciate the posting and the follow-up comments.  I think this is a useful debate within the environmental community on how to best reach our long-term goals.  But I agree with the previous post that it's time to move beyond just getting a seat at the table and being happy when we are thrown a bone once in a while.

  The thing I like most about Warnow's response is the inclusion of the "paradigm shift" language.  Giving the cause numerical goals does provide a vision with scope that is both specific and credible.  But I don't think Warnow goes far enough, and perhaps this what Rynn was getting at (or perhaps I'm grossly over-estimating my synthesis skills).

  To me the debate needs to start off with a discussion of values.  Things like innovation, self-reliance, sustainability, and adaptation are all core values that can appeal to most Americans (you could even throw in security if you want).  This framing should be the starting point, and the numbers should follow to help provide that specific direction.  But we are letting someone else define the problem, and a paradigm shift wont happen until we take control of how the issue is framed.

  And no, this reframing does not initially address the problems of offering choices to change one's behavior to be more environmental.  But it does start another discussion on what are the values for different groups of people.  At least then we can all acknowledge what we have in common, but then also be able to work towards what makes us different.On Continuing the debate posted 2 years, 6 months ago 78 Responses