Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Can Cheney's "One Percent Doctrine" Apply to Climate Change?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 1   Interesting 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H1 12/7/09

Become a Fan
  (4 fans)
- Advertisement -

In his 2006 book, The One-Percent Doctrine," author Ron Suskind describes Vice President Dick Cheney's approach to fighting terrorism: Quoting from Suskind:

"If there's a one-percent chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response," Cheney said. He paused to assess his declaration. "It's not about our analysis, or finding a preponderance of evidence," he added. "It's about our response." (p. 62)

The right cheered Cheney's approach. He was keeping us safe, they said, and cost is no object in the quest to keep ussafe. And he was going after bad guys -- "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here." That he was perhaps going after the wrong bad guys was immaterial.

The left was more cautious. Going after bad guys was good, but they had to be the right bad guys. Efforts to keep us safe could not result in a police state that trampled basic liberties and the constitutional protections every citizen deserves. And cost is an issue: you can't realistically wage two foreign wars while cutting taxes and not expect the deficit to spiral out of control.

In other words, the solutions cannot be more draconian than the problems they purport to solve.

When the topic turns to the climate change, the teams change sides. The left says the science is compelling and we must therefore take positive action now to minimize and eventually reverse the effects that industrial man has had on the environment.

The right looks for weaknesses in the science and interprets each one as evidence that taking any action at all is not only a waste of time, effort, and money, but also an encroachment on the prerogatives of businesses to make a profit and the rights of individuals to be left alone.

This makes for a stimulating but not fully informed debate. It is not fully informed because it debates only two cells -- one dimension -- of a four-cell logic grid. Inclusion of the other two cells may lead us to different insights and decisions.

- Advertisement -

Here's what I mean:

Draw a 2 x 2 grid on a piece of paper. Label the two columns as "Science is RIGHT" and "Science is WRONG." This dimension reflects our assessment of the validity of the evidence that now exists regarding climate change and man's effects thereon.

Now label the two rows as "Do SOMETHING" and "Do NOTHING." This dimension reflects the actions we think we should take based on our understanding of what we think we know about anthropogenic global warming and climate change.

Cell A, in the upper left, says the science is right and we should do something now. What we do may be debatable and there are pros and cons to each proposed action, but this cell concludes something must be done.

Cell B, in the upper right, thinks the science is questionable, unsupportable, misguided, or wrong. Therefore, whatever we do (if anything) must be based on some rationale other than climate science. We may say that the science is wrong but cleaner air and water are good in their own right, even if we are not saving the planet.

- Advertisement -

Cell C, in the lower right, holds that the science is wrong or misguided and therefore we should do nothing. We should maintain the status quo and move on to other topics. Climate change is dead; we have other, better things to spend our time and money on.

Cell D, in the lower left, believes that even though the science is right, we should still do nothing. It will cost too much; climate change would happen anyway -- man is not responsible for it and is powerless to stop it; and we should just live in the present and let future generations play whatever hands they are dealt. If doom is in their future, so be it.

To this point, the climate change debate has pitted Cell A -- from the left, arguing that the science is right and we must act now -- vs. Cell C -- from the right, holding that the science is bogus and we should do nothing. The result is a vigorous but fairly one-dimensional debate of a multi-dimensional issue.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Rick Wise is an industrial psychologist and retired management consultant. For 15 years, he was managing director of ValueNet International, Inc. Before starting ValueNet, Rick was director, corporate training and, later, director, corporate (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

HOW TO AVOID THE UNION

WILL GOP REBUT OBAMA'S EDUCATION SPEECH?

A Conservative's "12 Days of Christmas"

"I Don't Want to Pay for Somebody Else's Health Care"

Reconsidering Iraq: What If We Had Been Greeted as Liberators?

FairTax: Too Good To Be True?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
7 people are discussing this page, with 17 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

I'm not going to fall for this man-made global war... by Michael Lee on Monday, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:50:23 PM
It appears that Big Oil and Dr. Kelly got a little... by Michael Lee on Monday, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:29:22 PM
I think you just proved my point, Mr. Lee, that pe... by Richard Wise on Tuesday, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:11:51 AM
"....If that approach made sense in fighting terro... by hommedespoir on Tuesday, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:04:40 PM
Mr. Wise, You still do not understand that the wh... by Michael Lee on Tuesday, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:20:44 PM
click Nice video revealing Al Gore's fraud.click... by Michael Lee on Tuesday, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:16:33 PM
Now add time. Even in D we do not "leave future ge... by Andrey Gerasimenko on Tuesday, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:22:04 PM
I'd agree that it probably is, for the most part, ... by Adam Smith on Tuesday, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:50:34 PM
CO2 only acconts for .038% of all greenhouse gases... by Michael Lee on Tuesday, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:05:34 PM
I appreciate the faulty logic of Cheney and the PN... by Paul from Potomac on Tuesday, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:22:26 PM
There is well established science here and it is ... by Richard Lee on Tuesday, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:53:39 PM
Perhaps you need to take it to the next level, mor... by Richard Lee on Tuesday, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:53:57 PM
Thanks to all for your comments. The point of the ... by Richard Wise on Wednesday, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:16:30 AM
My biggest concern is that we are not applying due... by Richard Lee on Wednesday, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:06:10 PM
This piece appeared in a Thomas Friedman editorial... by Richard Wise on Wednesday, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:30:48 PM
It is pure deception. Just as Cheney was able to c... by Michael Lee on Wednesday, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:09:30 PM
click... by Michael Lee on Wednesday, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:39:59 PM