Clash of the Titans
I know, it wasn't supposed to be a debate, but a conversation, this meeting between the top polar opposites of the climate change/global warming dialogue, but it's hard to avoid the term. They weren't behind podiums with a moderator in between, but otherwise all the pieces were in place.
The matchup between Bill McKibben and John McClaughry Tuesday night at Burr and Burton Academy lived up to its billing, for the most part, in my opinion, to shedding some light on an often emotionally driven conversation. Here we had two articulate, intelligent men, who held a civil and at times funny discussion (best line of the night - McKibben's reference to his daughter calling him the Dark Lord for his tendency to turn off the lights in the house, and McClaughry's retort that she wasn't the only one) without drifting too much into scientific jargon, although they threatened to go there on occassion, bringing a lot of intellectual horsepower to an important subject - maybe the most imprtant of our time. It certainly looks likely to be that for our children and grandchildren. And it was refreshing that neither of them bent over backwards to being unfailingly civil and polite to a total fault. Sparks did fly every so often. Thank God.
I thought John McClaughry did pretty well. He must have known going in that his was the minority view. Mankind isn't causing global warming! Omigod!
No one interrupted him for applause.
I've met him a few times before and this guy is the real deal. He brings a powerful intellect to often unpopular subjects in left-leaning Vermont. He is an articulate defender of a libertarian viewpoint of individual freedom that is often under assault here in the name of the common good. I don't always agree with John but I always respect his arguments. If you're going to cross swords with him, bring your full suit of armor. What I like about him the most is his intellectual security - if he doesn't know something, he'll admit it. His opinions are fact based.
I've never met Bill McKibben outside a couple of public forums. He seems, like McClaughry, a passionate defender of his viewpoints, and I respect them. He made a strong case for his views that human activity is indeed the driver of global warming, and I think that's a pretty strong case. I'm going to buy that until someone shows me otherwise. I don't hink solar radiation, or the natural pollution nature contributes through volcanoes, natural disasters and fires explains why every year, I ski less and less.
So it was great these two were brought together, and thanks to Ralph Colin and the Green Mountain Academy for Lifelong Learning for bringing them here. These were the sort of intellectual discussions I remember from college, and they sure are rare nowadays.
I really didn't come away from it changing my mind. On this one I lean more towards the McKibben view. But McClaughry made me stop and think. We are talking about a lot of money to fix global warming. What if it is only
Mother Nature playing games? The conversation will go on. It would be great if these sorts of dialogues could happen more often, and next time, let's see more youngsters there. This is about their world, after all. Hopefully, they're listening in one way or another.
Comments
Global Warming: Scientific Truth or Unfortunate Bogeyman?
This evening’s event, featuring John McLaughry and Bill McKibben on the
subject of global warming, was billed as "a conversation, not a debate".
Sponsored by the Green Mountain Academy for Lifelong Learning, this was an opportunity to listen to the opposing views of these two well known Vermonters on a topic that many believe to be the preeminent issue of our
time. We all owe the Academy our thanks for creating this unique event in our community.
Personally, I found the evening both fascinating and frustrating.
Fascinating in bringing these two personalities together in person, in the hope of observing high level engagement and discourse and intellectual
jousting; frustrating in that neither really engaged the other in actual conversation. Rather, it was more like the "debate" seen too commonly these days – more a series of one sided monologues than actual discussion.
McKibben trotted out the global warming mantra of IPCC data as proof of human caused global warming; McLaughry doesn’t believe it, finding it politically biased propaganda that doesn’t meet the standards of the scientific method. However, neither offered further depth to their
disagreement; indeed, McKibben displayed visible agitation over McLaughry’s refusal to budge, in the end offering only the circular argument that ‘I
must be right because you didn’t prove I’m wrong’. Unfortunately, these tactics undermine one’s credibility, although they are used commonly when one is so convinced of one’s own beliefs that they simply cannot understand
why everyone else won’t follow along.
From an analytical perspective, I found this fascinating by illustrating how easily a cause or mission can, paradoxically, lead us to focus on what
divides us instead of what unites us. It was very clear that neither McKibben nor McLaughry were going to sway each other’s position on the
reasons for global warming.
Interestingly, there were two key points upon which they did agree; sadly, these were lost in the shuffle. One was that some type of market-based tool
was the most efficient method to encourage society to reduce carbon emissions. The other was that conservation and efficiency were by far the
most cost effective tools available now; both claim to practice them at home. One even suggested that his family calls him the ‘lord of the dark’
for always turning out lights throughout his home!
It would have been wonderful if the moderator had been able to seize upon each of these points of agreement, and explore them further to see where they might lead. This might have been a much more positive approach toward strategies for success both locally and globally. This was just like discussions held by our Planning Commission earlier this year on these same
issues. The Commission was asked to include ‘global warming’ or ‘carbon reduction’ as issues or goals in the Town Plan. The Commission was not
united on the purpose or validity; yet there was unanimous and enthusiastic
agreement that we should pursue the recommended strategies because they made good sense: use energy more efficiently, encourage responsible roduction of renewable energy, reduce reliance on unstable geopolitical areas, use less
energy, spend less money, become more green... These are all in the Town Plan, for very sound local and global economic and environmental reasons,
yet those requesting these changes were still unhappy because the Commission
did not also share the underlying cause or mission of carbon reduction.
There was so much shared aggreement, but we never experienced the satisfaction of finding that common ground. It’s what happens when the
mission or cause becomes an end in itself, instead of a tool to achieve a shared goal.
I also found the evening presented an interesting parallel to the wind energy forums we held in recent years – the youth in our community were conspicuously absent. Was it the cost? The marketing? Homework and other school commitments? Or simply not enough seats for this sold-out event? If we as adults hope to truly solve the serious issues of our day, we’ve got to help bring the next generation along with us - after all, they’re the ones who will inherit the environment we leave behind.
Thanks again to the Academy for creating this event - I hope we have more opportunities to listen and learn from people with unique insights and
perspectives. I also hope that we as a community can continue to learn how to focus on and celebrate what unites us, so that together, we can continue
building a stronger community, a place worth caring about.
Lee Krohn writes this piece in his official capacity as a private citizen.
The views are his own, and are offered in the hope of stimulating creative
thought for the common good.
Posted by: Lee Krohn | September 14, 2007 12:58 PM