Aggressive Writing Styles May Affect Readership Levels
A commenter points out that I may get more readers if I soften my tone. He has a point here, but I am incapable of writing in any other way. If I watered this down to politically correct, unoffensive drivel, I really wouldn’t have anything worth saying at all.
And keep in mind that this whole discussion has become dozens of times more life-threatening since the election of Donald Trump and his now-obvious intention to shred the environmental progress that the U.S. (world leader) has made over the last half-century. If this were happening in Moldova or Paraguay, i.e., places of relative unimportance in the environmental scheme of things, perhaps I wouldn’t be as strident. But here, there is so much at stake; the continuing decline and fall of the U.S. as a moral authority will very much influence what happens in the rest of the world in terms of mitigating the decay of our ecosystems. All this is going so incredibly wrong that I’m compelled (literally–I’m incapable of doing it any other way) to express the depths of my true feelings, observations and opinions on this unfolding horror story.
@Craig
(1) I thoroughly endorse your commentary style and please keep it up.
(2) Robust style and aggressive discussion is always best.
Those readers who don’t understand the critical importance of (1) and (2) above are not the readers that 2GreenEnergy should be pitching to.
I don’t always agree with what you say; in fact I don’t often agree with much you say; but that is not the point at all. At least you have something to say, and you often say it forcefully, always passionately and as best you can.
Keep up the good work.
Lawrence Coomber
Craig,
There’s a middle ground between wildly passionate, inaccurate hyperbole, and “watered down politically correct, unoffensive drivel “.
The election of President Trump in the US and the general swing to the right in Congress and states, along with a general swing away from “politically correct” politicians throughout the western world , is partly due a backlash against the stridency and intolerance of extreme Green-left advocates.
This reaction has been a long time coming and dispute the signs, no one could stop the rampage of hysterical self-indulgence by the extreme green-left.
Now is the time for geen advocates to change tactics. Now is the time to curb the counter-productive ranting, and concentrate on building credibility and be regarded as a responsible alternative.
Craig, you ask me “Why do you care ?” . The answer comes in three parts.
1) I think you do yourself a disservice. By joining the rabid, we all lose you as an important advocate for clean tech.
2) Self-interest. I’ve been warning for years that a backlash could remove incentives and support for clean tech investments.
3)I’m fearful that just as the left infiltrated the green movement to advance political and social agenda’s, so too will the ultra right seek this opportunity to promote reactionary social and political agenda’s.
You often refer to “US Moral Authority”, well, apart from such a claim always being more of a delusional myth than real, isn’t it time to be very careful to gain a little more “moral’ authority, apart from just shouting “hooray for my side, everyone else is evil !” ?
Real moral authority comes from respect. Respect must be earned by practicing tolerance and ensuring the accuracy of claims and advocacy.
Calling opponents corrupt, without evidence, undermines credibility not just in yourself, but for the whole green movement. Environmentalist need to regain credibility and “moral authority” by persuasion and example. We need to concentrate on what we do right, not what others may do wrong.
Advocacy shouldn’t be just a matter of venting spleen and vilifying opponents, but rather inspiring and persuading by showing a better way, a way even opponents can respect and find aspect they can include in their own lives.
Just a thought……
It is difficult to manage a publication and write in it. As you pointed out, the decisions you make under each hat might sometimes conflict with one another.
Generally, in a fight, and I have no doubt that the struggle for a sane environmental policy is a conflict, it is not usually wise to come out swinging wildly. There are many different styles but some calculation will be rewarded with success. From the same idea we probably get the adage to “pick your battles.”
Too much calculation however doesn’t show much heart. And Craig I would guess it is your passion that also tends to gather readership in a setting where too many other writers are repeating a philosophy dictated from on high and planned only for short term maximum financial rewards. Keep up the interesting work.
Great insights. Thanks very much.