Like John, my conversation was not with someone who is against the belief that the environment is an issue that needs immediate action, but there were still many aspects that we disagreed on.
After establishing how important this issue was to him, I asked my friend what he thought would be the next best steps to work towards resolving the issue. He responded by saying that he thought that the steps taking by the Obama administration have been the right ones, because they not only enforce new regulation but also give economic incentives to move towards greener means of practice.
I then asked him how he would go about convincing the average American citizen that the environment is a matter that needs to be addressed, given that the economy is the number one issue on everyone's mind. His response was that economic incentives are the best way to get people on board with reforms, especially at this time of economic recession. Giving companies and individuals subsidies if they moved towards greener practices seems to be the best method to persuade people to make changes in the way they operate, according to him.
We both agreed on the fact that it is hard to make people see how urgent of an issue this is because of the lack of tangible evidence. People only choose to believe what they see and while there might have been ample of methods that scientists have utilised to show people the truth, most have a hard time conceptualising all of it. My thought are that it will take something drastic to happen, before we finally take the action we need to take, and by then it might be too late. He, on the other hand, is more positive and believes that we have the time and the potential to pull ourselves out of the ditch we have dug ourselves in to. I agree that we have the time and the potential to make changes, but that is only if we actively work towards them immediately. The problem is that, too often, we cannot be bothered to inconvenience ourselves to make changes if we are comfortable where we are, even if these changes mean that we will be more efficient and even, quite possibly, more comfortable.

My conversation was not with a climate-change skeptic. I don’t know too many of those. Rather, I had a lively debate with my best friend, deciding on which of the pressing issues the world faced it should deal with first. He is an avid supporter of human rights, and I an equally strong proponent of environmentalism. The issues he posed were these: third-world exploitation, cultural imperialism, indigenous peoples’ rights, racism, sexism, paternalism...the list goes on and on. I, on the other hand, defined our most important issues in environmental terms: exploitation of natural resources, cultural consumerism, the defense of indigenous plants against invaders, speciesism, anthropocentrism, and pollution.
We came to some conclusions and agreements right away. A lot of his issues were intertwined with mine—the exploitation of natural resources is, at the same time in many places the exploitation of impoverished nations. Pollution from the haves is increasingly and negatively affecting the have-nots. And it is a false dichotomy to say that this issue or that should be addressed first. There are all kinds of people and organizations working to remedy every wrong that has been committed, against man or nature, and it is not as though everyone must turn their full attention to one issue at the expense of another.
However, on the individual level the problems are big enough that we cannot dabble in civil rights and deep ecology at the same time. If one has the aim to change the world for the better, one must first decide what needs his or her attention the most desperately. I have decided to focus on the environment not because I don’t believe in human rights but because I am convinced that if drastic changes aren’t brought to our food, transportation, and energy systems then we will see more human suffering than ever before (this is not the entire story—I must admit that what scares me just as much is the destruction of Nature that has so far resulted and will only worsen if we do not change our ways—but I had to focus on the human cost because, as Alex pointed out, it is best to promote your arguments by the logic of the person you’re attempting to persuade). My friend, however, found it hard to try to widen the scope of ethics to include ecology when humanity has a hard enough time treating its members fairly.
We debated. It was heated but friendly (we’ve had enough practice disagreeing), but in the end nothing had changed. Of course, in this scenario I don’t consider it a loss at all. We need people working to protect people from other people as well as people working to protect the environment from people and people from polluted environments.

The circumstances around the beginnings of my environmental conversation are a bit fuzzy, but in the end I can say it was one of the most encompassing and engrossing I've had in recent memory. I had been enjoying the nightlife in Adams Morgan, and when my two friends and I began our walk back to the apartment the conversation too began.

The conversation first began about a girl that my friend had been spending time with only to find that she had a long-term boyfriend. Rather than table the uncomfortable issue right there, we decided to evaluate the situation using some the common debate passageways of the ethos, the logos, and the pathos. I will not go to in depth about the results of the first leg of the argument, but needlessly to say--even though both sides of the issue were vigorously exercised-- my friend made the right choice. Yet it was here that we began to make an evaluation of the very debate style we had been using. Could everything be encapsulated into one of the categories? Were these elements revelatory pathways to understanding reason or compassion or were they merely blinders that would force us to miss things? Fortunately, one of my friends, Friend A we will call him, was willing to make a stand that whatever could not be explained logos or ethos was truly a pathos. We considered the issues of environment and the world that persists around, wondering whether or not most people would even bother to debate over their lifestyles.

The logical arguments are clear said Friend A as are the ethical ones. It is merely a matter of not working enough on the control that the pathos can have on people. He stated that people could be appealed to for compassion or at the very least fear to move forward. It was at this point where my other friend--B-- stepped in being a very deliberate thinker. "Yes, but do people continue to work for fear or compassion when they are more closely surrounded by mundane "necessities"? We can't expect them to stay fearful when the effects of what is happening are being shipped across space and time."

"Do we not need to indict our leaders for not taking a greater part in the move for action?" I said. Of course, this spawned a large tangent about a whole mess of issues concerning leadership, people stealing recent elections in northern states etc etc. Eventually, however, we were began to evaluate whether or not leaders were really not just like any other person who could not be appealed to to make change. Perhaps in trying to be leaders they were giving up their freewill to merely be a voice of constituents and interest groups. The conversation continued on for some time and eventually returned to an evaluation on our debate pathways. It was perhaps most revealing that we could talk to each other and concede points and win in others, yet such a debate is never possible or sought on the issues at stake on a large enough scale to truly matter. Even 3 intelligent FRIENDS could not decide whether conventional ways of appeal were even worth using let alone what would be the best angle to approach another.

Go for the Relatives

My dad has long associated himself with the conservative cause. Going along with the conservative line of the day, he long was a global warming skeptic - up until this past semester, in fact.

What I found with him, and with most people who are climate skeptics, is that they have associated themselves with the Republican party and the conservative cause, to varying degrees. Often this was their upbringing - for my father, his immediate and extended family were all from the South. Though I have no data to numbers to back this up, I think Civil War era divisions are still at the root of the split in this country (just look at the presidential election map). Many people in the south still think of northerners as Damn Yanks, and northerners consider southerners backwards hicks.

For my dad, and I think most people, where they stand on the issues is largely determined by where their family stood before them. Politics is not nearly as conscious as it should be. For most people, when they are not already knowledgeable on an issue, they are not going to bother to become so, unless it seriously behooves them to do so.

The party line provides an easy cop out to actual research into the issues. This is one of the larger problems I have with the party system that we have, but I won't digress anymore.

Regarding climate change, my dad had a basic knowledge of the conservative line regarding climate change. It took me awhile to convince him otherwise, but eventually I did. The biggest factors in convincing him was tailoring my argument to him. I had to convince him using things he was familiar with and respected. For some people this is religion, for others this is broad distaste for big government (or government at all). I lucked out because for my dad, it was science with a little dab in politics (both of which I have extensive background in).

He had always gone along with party line and never really thought much of it because it didn't affect him. I think my choice to focus on environmental issues in my academic life made him reconsider what he had always followed. Broader than that, the last election provided the perfect stage upon which I could engage him and my entire family in a debates over prominent issues in the election. My parents had never really engaged these issues head on before, but my focus on them brought them to reconsider their views.

This is a trend I see with many people. When family members, or friends that they deeply respect are passionate about certain issues, they reconsider. This was the case for former VA Senator John Warner, who's grandchildren convinced him of the reality of climate change. It has been the same with many people, on many issues (Even Dick Cheney and Gay Rights via his daughter). The lesson I take from this is that, if you want to get to someone high up who otherwise wouldn't give you the time of day - get to someone they care about, who will do the convincing for you.

I have, thus far, really enjoyed reading William McDonough and Michael Braungart's piece and it is definitely great to finally see a positive side after a semester of pretty depressing factoids. It is indeed empowering to see this two gentlemen step away from the norm and bring about change in their own respective fields.

One of the reasons I have enjoyed this read the most is because of the experience these two authors bring. They have both been involved in sustainable solutions for a while now and have a lot of experience which makes it easier to take their word and believe what they have to say. Hence, I am a lot less skeptical perusing through their book as compared to other texts we encountered in the duration of this course.

I especially enjoyed the beginning, where they analyse the waste of an average family whose members might think they are conscious about their effects on the environment, but who unknowingly continue to out a strain on the planet. They don't just criticise and preach, but, rather, they show how they have been able to make changes in the way they operate.

They provide optimism and advice on how there is still hope and ways in which we can save ourselves from all the damage we have done. And while it is great to hear that, I am not sure if I am entirely convinced. Sure, there are plenty of alternatives to our wasteful ways of living and I believe that. The problem I see us having to face is convincing people that it is imperative to move away fro our ways immediately if we expect to overcome our mistakes. People know there is a problem and because they do not see any major effects just yet, most are unwilling to move away from the comfortable lives they currently possess. Until something drastic occurs, I do not viably see any changes being made. Alas, when that drastic event occurs, it might be too late. I hate to end on such a dire note, especially when these two authors are so positive about our planet's future, but those are my honest sentiments and I hope that I am proven wrong!

I really appreciate the spirit of Cradle to Cradle because Braungart and McDonough display optimism. This is an essential element if people are to have any hope of correcting their course. They claim to see a world of endless possibility. I too can see no reason to limit the human imagination or deny it any chance for creativity. In so much of what the two men present, there is a sort of childlike quality. No doubt that stems more from the limits most people are satisfied being confined to in adulthood than from any true open imagination gateways that only children have. I really love their evaluation of how the current designs bulletpoints would appear. It is a perfect indictment of the absurdity of the systems we "thrive" on. I believe them when they say that cities can breathe and release and contain energy according to intelligent, lightweight, and beautifully simple design. I believe them when they say that cars can glean energy in a quiet way. When it comes down to it, the principle they live on is that the theoretically possible is indeed possible. If we can see it in our brand and begin transubstantiate thought into matter, the world can begin to change. Frankly that is the least difficult part to believe because it has already happened.

What cannot be taken for granted is whether people have this innovation in their minds and in their hearts. If a fire is not lit for our leaders to move collectively with responsive citizens to change, no quick change will come. And it is at this point where I believe I stray from Braungart and McDonough because I do not feel that we have much time. This is essential to remember because I can only concede that is "anything is possible" when there is a long enough timeline. Design is essential, but clean energy has not proven easy to extract in unnatural ways. Can we wait for new forms of this essential part of design puzzle? Will changing cause us to damn ourselves before the new, long-term, renewable sources actually come to a point where they can sustain us. I feel very much in need of an experience to jar from a critical perspective that fears failure. Perhaps the authors' strength is that they know simply that failure is unacceptable.

Vision and Post-Environmentalism

I loved reading this book. It stands in stark contrast to the majority of environmental works preaching doom and gloom. I see that some people think this book is a bit lofty and naïve, I disagree. The vision that McDonough and Braungart set out is just that – a vision. They are simply putting out there a goal, an ideal, that they recognize is just that, an ideal.

Without this ideal, environmentalists have been ineffective. Traditional environmentalists are much more about breaking everything down and excising the cancer that is man from Nature. This book lays out a vision for what the environmental movement should strive for, instead of just working against things. This has been one of the largest criticisms of the traditional environmental movement; they fight industry but don’t really offer an alternative vision.

Cradle to Cradle is that vision. It is the flagship for the post-environmental movement, which I count myself among. Certainly this vision won’t be realized in the near (10, 20, 50, 100 years) future. But, it gives sustainability advocates a goal to work towards. And, it provides a more optimistic vision that translates better with normally non-environmentally inclined people. They see this integrative vision, and see that is does not simply breakdown industry and the social fabric; it offers what they see as a legitimate (and probably better than the status quo) alternative.

Cradle to Cradle: We may have already thrown out the baby with the bathwater

Cradle to Cradle has got me thinking in new ways—I must credit it with that. Never before had I given so much thought to closed-loop production cycles, or all of the hazards of cradle to grave production. I begin reading the book in the library, but by the tenth page was starting to feel nervous and out of place, worried that my fidgeting would lead to abrasions of my clothes and the carpet and the table and that I might be breathing in any number of poisonous fumes without knowing. I quickly moved outside, where I was much better able to focus on the book and not the threatening presence of so many untested synergies of mostly unknown mixtures of chemicals.

I liked most about the book its fresh ideas. Instead of coming up with a better answer to the question of environmental efficiency, it presents a new question: eco-effectiveness. To live in such a way that human activity benefits nature—I have hopes that it might someday be a reality. However, I feel that the book may have oversimplified the issues involved and their solutions.

Take the book itself. Made from a special plastic, it has the possibility to be upcycled indefinitely. The ink can wash off, and new words could be printed on it. However, exactly what chemical washes this ink off? How is it produced? Transported? Packaged? What happens to the ink-water combination? Some of these questions are resolved in the book, which presents baby-steps for companies to introduce these new concepts. However, what happens in the mean-time, while chemicals are still harmful and cars still pollute? I am afraid that the time it would take to convert the world economy into a cradle to cradle is too long—our old ways might rob the cradle of its possibility and leave us with nothing. Already, the Earth’s ability to sustain future generations is called into question. What kind of time do we have to change our ways? Less, I think, than what it would require to change the world one soap-company and car manufacturer at a time.

Sorry to be so dreary, I know that this book was supposed to bring us some uplifting. Please, someone, prove me wrong.

After reviewing the two websites, I’ve come to the conclusion that global warming does indeed exist.
Supporting evidence (not proof, because, as Coby Beck reminds us, proof belongs to the domain of mathematics, not science):

The “friends of science” appear to know very little science. None of their claims about the “myths” of global warming are backed up by cited research. Also, and I quote, “Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is.” This kind of faulty logic is the kind of stuff I’ve seen while going through their website. Both gases, when released by mechanisms outside of the natural cycle, are pollutants. While the “friends of science” were trying to prove global warming wrong, they presented a graph used by “climate alarmists,” to show the strong trend upwards in global temperature over the last forty years. Using another graph (of the sine curve), the “friends of science” proved that the first graph could not possibly have a strong trend upwards if it was part of a normal cycle of events. In such a “normal cycle of events,” trends go up and down, and if one looks only at the immediate rate and recent past, he or she would be mistaken in thinking that trend is down or flat or rising, or whatever the normal cycle was doing at that point. But to assume that the trend of rising temperatures is part of a normal cycle of events is fallacious; to use your conclusion to support premises are, as even they remind us, illogical and ungrounded. On the other hand, if I were a climate change skeptic, and as my objections and “facts” started to crumble around me, as more and more evidence is added to the other side, I might have chosen to resort to invalid or inconsistent arguments too.

The other website was full of data, cited research, and compelling facts. Though it presents an idea that neither I nor anyone else (I don’t think) really want to exist, overwhelming evidence shows us that, yes, indeed global warming is happening. It is up to us to do what we can to face it and mitigate it, but first we have to accept it. I agree with my colleagues that it is a little childish—the name is rather condescending even. However, as Romm points out, scientists are not good at repeating the same thing over and over. Nor will they argue about things that have already been established. As much as I wish that people could be rational and accept scientific fact as such, it seems to me that is up to the rhetoricians of the world to convince it.

PR Battles

The Friends of Science site basically wipes the floor with Grist's 'How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic'. Both the web design and the language used in Friends of Science is much better than Grist's. People want information to be well packaged, simple, and straightforward.

The clarity in type, page layout, and eye-pleasing blue background make reading the information on the page much more pleasant than Grist's much narrower page layout with way too many links and much less pleasing-to-the-eye to the eye white background. +1 to Friends of Science in the PR Battle.

The fact that Grist's page of links is much longer than the Friends of Science page of 10 straightforward 'myths' and 'explanations', is another indicator of loosing the PR battle. +1 to Friends of Science. People do not want to click 261 separate links (Yes, I counted). If I as an environmentalist am put off by their website, how can they ever hope to get skeptics to wade through their poor web design?

The fact that Grist has so much information is laudable, but it also hints at the fact that many environmentalists and climate scientists still do not realize that they are not in a battle of science, they are in a PR Battle. It is understandable that scientists speak in science. But, they (and we) need to realize that the vast majority of the public does not. They need to think back and remember that most people didn't like school, and especially didn't like their science and math classes. To expect all these people to reason through science is, unfortunately, naive. People think in terms of money and people. Grist's site fails to recognize this. +1 to Friends of Science.

I could go on, but really the result is the same. Until the environmental movement learns to speak in popular terms, they will not only lose the war, but most of the battles as well.

After looking at both the websites, I will have to agree with what Siram said in his post published below. If these websites are intended to change the opinion of people in the opposite group, I don't think they have succeeded in doing so. It is so interesting that such vastly difference exist and both consider themselves to be truly scientific websites, created with no intention of profit. As Siram mentioned, the fact that there is still so much ambiguity around this subject as to whether we can concretely say that global warming is a problem or not, continues to impede our progress on solving it, if it indeed does exist.
I found that both the sites seemed to attack the other side rather aggressively, in their attempts to prove the other side wrong, and I am not quite sure whether that is the best approach. When you are trying to convince someone of an opposing viewpoint your own beliefs, it might almost be more effective to at least acknowledge the other side before you go into your rant of why your ideology is better. However, I will admit that they do a good job of going through all the so called "myths" of each side and disprove them one by one quite effectively.
If you are an ordinary person, who had no opinion on the topic, was to stumble on both of these websites right after the other, I'm not really sure whether they would walk away having formed an opinion. Both sites claim to be credible, scientific websites, not designed for profit, but rather to educate, which makes it even harder to judge how reliable they actually are.
Content wise, I think that WWF was more convincing, but it also might be because I tend to agree with what they say more than the other website.

Upon investigating both of these websites, there exists one great barrier to effectiveness in both of them. Being a college student who is supposed to thinking critically and examine bias, both of these sites do little to even mask their prejudice. One of the greatest problems with the climate change debates is arriving at a true scientific consensus, a definitive proven conclusion. Is global warming happening or not? As one of the websites conveys, these sorts of absolutes rarely exist in science. There is always debate regardless of the issue, and while some issues seem to have breakthroughs, the whole truth seems to never come to light. Newton laws even break down at high enough speeds after all. Admittedly there does seem to be a vast consensus on the issue on the side of climate change being real and immediate. Yet it seems that somewhere between the unbiased media, certain peoples' interests, and varying projections the impetus for action falls flat.

Likely Friends of Science's existence is both a driver of the this confusion and ennui and a result of it. Perhaps some people want comfort or easy answers. Others may need support for their livelihood, business practices, or policy support. Others may genuinely be seeking all scientific works to come to a conclusion. Still, the point remains that neither one of these sites is going to convince someone who is of the opposite mindset. Certainly this could be more a comment on the stubbornness of the human perception, but the debunking myths approach lacks subtlety taking swats at myths whose argument the FoS actually frame with their own their words and interests in mind. Seemingly, the CFC-ozone issue had more of a incentive to change because of testing results being frightening. Does it then make sense to believe that the climate change issue can be solved by two sides arguing to change each others' minds with contrasting science whose results can vary based on region. To nail down the weather patterns of the whole world is difficult because no one trend is visible in every region nor is the issue sequestered in one region. I did not find either of these sites very illuminating. They throw models up and make claims. They are not going to mystify me with science graphs, though the actual idea of weather and biology is incredibly mystifying. They are only going to confuse and bog down my mind. I admit my own bias leads me to believe that climate change is real and immediate. Perhaps I was never going to like the Friends of Science site. Yet the WWF site was designed in the same childish, argumentative style that serves the interests of no one, merely causes the debate to fester.