On a topic like coal ports, it takes a certain kind of agility to bridge the gap between two opinionated groups and their entrenched mental models. Just Google "Gateway Pacific Terminal" and you will arrive at pages like these:
We start to see a pattern like this one, dominated by increasing alienation:
Soon the gap in beliefs, language, and means of justification becomes so wide as to make mutual understanding virtually impossible.
I admit to being guilty of this myself. I watch the scoping process like one might watch a scoreboard, celebrating with the high anti-coal turnout at the Oct. 27th meeting and gritting my teeth at the strong pro-coal showing on Nov. 29th. Yet I have to agree with the observations posted in this blog by Bellingham Herald's John Stark:
"Lots of people in Whatcom County are supportive of Gateway Pacific. You might not like that, but it is awfully hard to deny.
"Demeaning the character or the intelligence of those people is a dubious political strategy. It strikes me as morally dubious too."
We have to be careful that the tactics we choose do not demean our own intelligence.
It has been my opinion that the role of logic in a debate like this is not to overload one's audience with facts, but to bring them (and ourselves) from the place where they are, by statements which they can accept within their own mental model, to a place where we both agree.
To that end, I am challenging myself, in the next two weeks, to speak with at least three people or organizations representing a pro-terminal stance. I will seek to enter the conversation with no other agenda than to understand where their mental models originate.
I suspect I will find their views to be quite logical and based on the current realities of our economic system. Norm Becker here cites an article by Dr. Ted Trainer of South Wales, which outlines the kind of fundamental changes our entire economic system would have to undergo in order to survive without growth. First of all it details how the two cannot be compatible: a sustainable economy and the one in which we operate today.
Secondly it states why environmentalists have such a hard time communicating the need for radical change to the public at large: "The reason [being] of course that if they spoke up against the pursuit of growth and affluence in a society that is fiercely obsessed with these goals, they would quickly lose their subscribers."
I argue that a society does not need to be fiercely obsessed, but only merely concerned with the goal of growth so far as it underlies basic well-being, to keep the status quo in place. It is little wonder that labor unions, politicians, or the unemployed might support a coal terminal, given that little else in the way of employment will be available in the next 10-20 years.
I would like to say that all the "dirty" jobs projected at the terminal could be replaced with "green" jobs in the near future. Yet from my experience with a green startup, I will admit that our facility boasts only 8 full-time positions at maximum operations. Even if I find the numbers surrounding the coal terminal somewhat dubious, I know our company cannot possibly hope to compare to their promised employment.
In the business of transforming business, we might forget that many of our assumptions rest on the world "as it should be". Regardless of how necessary that vision is for the world to continue in any shape or form, it overlooks much of the world "as it is".
Third, Dr. Trainer paints a picture of what the zero-growth economy would look like, and yes, it is very different from the one we have now. In my view, we may arrive at his end goal faster if we go by increments instead of by complete revolution, because of people's natural disinclination for change.
Lastly, he shares his idea for how this transformation may be brought about.
So to answer my original question: "What can concerned citizens do?" I propose talking to our neighbors. Let's meet them halfway and see what positive energy comes from that interaction. Results will be posted on my return.
Gateway Pacific Terminal - Frequently Asked Questions
gatewaypacificterminal.com/the-project/f-a-q/Share
Frequently Asked Questions about plans for Gateway Pacific Terminal, a port facility that will create hundreds of new jobs and millions of dollars in taxes.
Gateway Pacific Terminal - Frequently Asked Questions
Gateway Pacific Terminal - RE-Sources.org
www.re-sources.org/home/Gateway-Pacific-TerminalShare
For now, you can continue to find information about the massive, dirty coal export proposal for Cherry Point at this page. But for the most updated information, ...
Soon the gap in beliefs, language, and means of justification becomes so wide as to make mutual understanding virtually impossible.
I admit to being guilty of this myself. I watch the scoping process like one might watch a scoreboard, celebrating with the high anti-coal turnout at the Oct. 27th meeting and gritting my teeth at the strong pro-coal showing on Nov. 29th. Yet I have to agree with the observations posted in this blog by Bellingham Herald's John Stark:
"Lots of people in Whatcom County are supportive of Gateway Pacific. You might not like that, but it is awfully hard to deny.
"Demeaning the character or the intelligence of those people is a dubious political strategy. It strikes me as morally dubious too."
We have to be careful that the tactics we choose do not demean our own intelligence.
It has been my opinion that the role of logic in a debate like this is not to overload one's audience with facts, but to bring them (and ourselves) from the place where they are, by statements which they can accept within their own mental model, to a place where we both agree.
To that end, I am challenging myself, in the next two weeks, to speak with at least three people or organizations representing a pro-terminal stance. I will seek to enter the conversation with no other agenda than to understand where their mental models originate.
I suspect I will find their views to be quite logical and based on the current realities of our economic system. Norm Becker here cites an article by Dr. Ted Trainer of South Wales, which outlines the kind of fundamental changes our entire economic system would have to undergo in order to survive without growth. First of all it details how the two cannot be compatible: a sustainable economy and the one in which we operate today.
Secondly it states why environmentalists have such a hard time communicating the need for radical change to the public at large: "The reason [being] of course that if they spoke up against the pursuit of growth and affluence in a society that is fiercely obsessed with these goals, they would quickly lose their subscribers."
I argue that a society does not need to be fiercely obsessed, but only merely concerned with the goal of growth so far as it underlies basic well-being, to keep the status quo in place. It is little wonder that labor unions, politicians, or the unemployed might support a coal terminal, given that little else in the way of employment will be available in the next 10-20 years.
I would like to say that all the "dirty" jobs projected at the terminal could be replaced with "green" jobs in the near future. Yet from my experience with a green startup, I will admit that our facility boasts only 8 full-time positions at maximum operations. Even if I find the numbers surrounding the coal terminal somewhat dubious, I know our company cannot possibly hope to compare to their promised employment.
In the business of transforming business, we might forget that many of our assumptions rest on the world "as it should be". Regardless of how necessary that vision is for the world to continue in any shape or form, it overlooks much of the world "as it is".
Third, Dr. Trainer paints a picture of what the zero-growth economy would look like, and yes, it is very different from the one we have now. In my view, we may arrive at his end goal faster if we go by increments instead of by complete revolution, because of people's natural disinclination for change.
Lastly, he shares his idea for how this transformation may be brought about.
So to answer my original question: "What can concerned citizens do?" I propose talking to our neighbors. Let's meet them halfway and see what positive energy comes from that interaction. Results will be posted on my return.
No comments:
Post a Comment