If we look at the arguments for or against vigorous action on climate change, there really is an overwhelming weight on the side of taking action.
And that's the case even if the climate change argument were a weak one (and it isn't) since the remedies have so many ancillary benefits. In truth, most (though not all) offered solutions should appeal to both deniers and skeptics for reasons having nothing to do with climate.
Yet meaningful action seems impossible.
So we come to this:
If the weight on one side of the teeter-totter is overwhelming,
And yet the teeter-totter won't budge leaving good solutions in the air and stagnation firmly rooted...
Then we must consider that the teeter-totter is broken and/or a new fulcrum is needed.
I'm not trying to be mysterious here. It just seems a good analogy.
In which case, the solution isn't piling on more good arguments...
It's to find out what's wrong with the teeter-totter and get to fixing it.
And that's the case even if the climate change argument were a weak one (and it isn't) since the remedies have so many ancillary benefits. In truth, most (though not all) offered solutions should appeal to both deniers and skeptics for reasons having nothing to do with climate.
Yet meaningful action seems impossible.
So we come to this:
If the weight on one side of the teeter-totter is overwhelming,
And yet the teeter-totter won't budge leaving good solutions in the air and stagnation firmly rooted...
Then we must consider that the teeter-totter is broken and/or a new fulcrum is needed.
I'm not trying to be mysterious here. It just seems a good analogy.
In which case, the solution isn't piling on more good arguments...
It's to find out what's wrong with the teeter-totter and get to fixing it.