3 ms·

Any book that advocates policy changes without justifying them ("skip the reasons") is not something I personally am interested in buying.

dwc 15y ago
Is this such a book? Or is it discussing implementation issues? There's a very big difference. I read books and articles talking about approaches and likely pitfalls. Of course I also read things that are advocacy. Some are both.
- jamesaguilar 15y ago
  It's possible the book is just discussing implementation issues. But if it's implementation issues for something that has not been convincingly established to be a problem, it seems like putting the cart before the horse. Why discuss hard choices that need to be made before establishing need? What is the point of such a work?
  - tedivm 15y ago
    The point was that there are so many reasons. Besides climate change a number of issues were brought up such as energy security, conservation, and nationalism. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of books that discuss these reasons. Should this book be forced to repeat the same things that have been said over and over again just for the sake of doing it?
dkarl 15y ago
The point is that it would be a rare reader indeed who doesn't believe in one or more justifications for increasing our energy efficiency. The country is so polarized that people from different sides of the aisle won't agree on the color of the sky for fear that the other side will gain some partisan advantage. The concrete issue here is that conservatives have many, many reasons for addressing the energy crisis, but they will not join any fight that requires them to admit the existence of human-caused global warming or admit the validity of any motives couched in environmental language. Those two issues are the kiss of death for any nationwide cooperation on energy issues. Not that there aren't troublemakers on the left as well. Any talk of reducing dependence on other countries is liable to rile up people who think more and more interdependence is the cure to everything. If we all drink from the same well, then nobody will poison it, right? Right. And how dare we treat other countries as scary and unreliable; how offensive is that? If only we were more dependent on them, we would be forced to give up our xenophobia. Discussing motives is a non-starter on either side of this cursed issue. Hell, willingness to set aside that discussion won't be enough; it will take discipline and determination, because opportunistic blowhards will speculate about motives simply to derail any bipartisan cooperation. "Are you sure you want to collaborate with those people? You don't share their kooky, immoral motives, do you?" Energy efficiency has so much polarizing baggage, yet such a broad appeal for a variety of reasons, that setting justifications aside is like declaring a cease-fire. Without it, nobody will stick their heads up and accomplish anything. I'm very happy to see people yadda-yaddaing the justifications. It's the first step towards cooperation.

dwc 15y ago

Is this such a book? Or is it discussing implementation issues? There's a very big difference. I read books and articles talking about approaches and likely pitfalls. Of course I also read things that are advocacy. Some are both.

jamesaguilar 15y ago
It's possible the book is just discussing implementation issues. But if it's implementation issues for something that has not been convincingly established to be a problem, it seems like putting the cart before the horse. Why discuss hard choices that need to be made before establishing need? What is the point of such a work?
- tedivm 15y ago
  The point was that there are so many reasons. Besides climate change a number of issues were brought up such as energy security, conservation, and nationalism. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of books that discuss these reasons. Should this book be forced to repeat the same things that have been said over and over again just for the sake of doing it?

dkarl 15y ago

The point is that it would be a rare reader indeed who doesn't believe in one or more justifications for increasing our energy efficiency. The country is so polarized that people from different sides of the aisle won't agree on the color of the sky for fear that the other side will gain some partisan advantage. The concrete issue here is that conservatives have many, many reasons for addressing the energy crisis, but they will not join any fight that requires them to admit the existence of human-caused global warming or admit the validity of any motives couched in environmental language. Those two issues are the kiss of death for any nationwide cooperation on energy issues. Not that there aren't troublemakers on the left as well. Any talk of reducing dependence on other countries is liable to rile up people who think more and more interdependence is the cure to everything. If we all drink from the same well, then nobody will poison it, right? Right. And how dare we treat other countries as scary and unreliable; how offensive is that? If only we were more dependent on them, we would be forced to give up our xenophobia. Discussing motives is a non-starter on either side of this cursed issue. Hell, willingness to set aside that discussion won't be enough; it will take discipline and determination, because opportunistic blowhards will speculate about motives simply to derail any bipartisan cooperation. "Are you sure you want to collaborate with those people? You don't share their kooky, immoral motives, do you?" Energy efficiency has so much polarizing baggage, yet such a broad appeal for a variety of reasons, that setting justifications aside is like declaring a cease-fire. Without it, nobody will stick their heads up and accomplish anything. I'm very happy to see people yadda-yaddaing the justifications. It's the first step towards cooperation.