I’ve got a major concern about the debate surrounding climate change: paradigms.
Over the past several months, my work has been consumed by the debate surrounding global climate change. Beyond causes, the frenetic activity in the administration and Congress have both lent a new urgency to the search for meaningful solutions in the realms of sustainability and greenhouse gas emission reductions. But despite the ripeness of the given moment, my own experiences with these conversations have left me concerned that two critical groups are still not engaged in the same conversation.
Here’s the latest example.
In a series of far-too-long meetings in the past few weeks, I’ve been working with a coalition of stakeholders to advise an aspirational research project. This coalition is comprised of the full spectrum of industries, non-profits, researchers, and social entrepreneurs.
Understandably, academicians are prominent within this coalition. They are the keystone of the project. While the various stakeholder groups will provide the funding, support, and communications assets necessary to propel the research forward, it all falls apart without these highly skilled, highly respected thought leaders. They hold that ever-so-important responsibility of delivering valuable data that will inform future decisions. But from my view, their collective paradigm seems a bit risk averse. Too quick to carry the refrain failure is not an option, they become stymied by the models and big questions.
Enter the entrepreneurs.
Full of piss and vinegar, you also have some deeply passionate, risk accepting individuals seeking to advance, often times, bold agendas. They’re ready for action. They’re ready to make substantial investment, and aren’t afraid to fail in the process. Tuned into concepts like iterative design, these are the Elon Musk types who don’t get hung up on singular design failures. The mentality can, in my view, best be described as sometimes you win, and sometimes you learn.
This is the way of disrupters. And after DECADES of debate over tired ideas like cap and trade, the disrupters are restless and ready to try some new approaches. Unfortunately, this willingness to test, fail and repeat seems reckless to many on an issue so rife with challenges (practical, political, etc).
Both of these camps are vital. And to those of us in the middle, they can often seem to be talking past each other.
I wish we could develop an exchange program. Create some intellectual ex-pats from each camp by plugging them into the other. They could develop a more common language. Unfortunately, the pace of decision making in this sphere isn’t leaving room for that kind of immersion. Instead, we seem to be stumbling and bumbling forward, likely to arrive at painting in pastels instead of the vibrancy of a bold vision.
There really is room for everyone to participate in the conversation about sustainability. Even those who question the role of humanity in creating global climate change likely believe in protecting their immediate environment. I’m hard-pressed to believe any parent or grandparent would shy from the opportunity to leave a legacy of stewardship as an example in the lives of their progeny. But we can’t, as yet, seem to strike that crucial balance between the thinkers and the doers that will bring newcomers into the tent.
If I had a bit of unsolicited advice to offer to the decision-makers today it would be this: don’t be afraid to try some new things and let new data get created. But temper the conversation because the anxiety inducing pace will likely drive a larger divide between the groups you’ll need in the coalition moving forward. Go on, set ambitious goals. American innovation and industry can, and always do, deliver. You’d probably be surprised what can happen when we stop letting the perfect solution remain the enemy of the good.
Part of the Possible 