Is the climate change debate too polarized to get results?

[Rod]

This book is changing the way I think, which was exactly as stated in the title.

The premise Hoggan advances is that the most pressing problem society has is not climate change, but the pollution in the public square - where "adversarial rhetoric and polarization is stifling discussion and debate creating resistance to change and thwarting our ability to solve our collective problems."

In a summary of interviews with outstanding thinkers he reveals "the importance of reframing our arguments with empathy and values to creating compelling narratives and spur action", fancy words for really taking into consideration your opponent's point of view.

I'm hoping members of this group might read this book or comment on the state of public discourse. Right now in my part of the world there's a fight to halt the building of a pipeline and limit the number of oil tankers that ply our coast. It seems to make sense to me since the burning of fossil fuels is a threat to our existence and yet environmentalists are going to lose this fight.

Why?

According to this book it has to do with our approach.

There are issues that are too important to me to go unresolved, even if I have to concede what I always considered the moral and empirical high ground. I now, somewhat reluctantly, realize that if I feel passionately for something I'm probably not thinking clearly - not seeing the full picture and other people's (that would be the idiot's) valid points of view.

I urge you to take a look at this book and consider your approach to vital issues you're involved with, especially if you're interested in climate change and a way forward. The debate is stalled, and as the title says the public discourse is toxic.

What do you think? Is there a better way or is it time to man the barricades?