Can We Move to Dialog on Global Warming?

I am always interested in new tools to address global warming. It seems to me that the most important may be those that effectively deal with how we can overcome fear and competition to confront threats together.

Recently I have read some inspiring articles of the Harvard Business School newsletter. The most recent was titled: Moving Beyond Debate: Start a Dialogue, about a new book, "Leading Through Conflict" by professional mediator Mark Gerzon.- HBSWK Pub. Date: May 22, 2006
The lead paragraph referred to the polarization of a culture of debate and closure vs exploring new options. It went on to quote from Julio Ollala, a Chilean coach who has worked internationally.

"What they yearned for was deep, honest, inclusive, and respectful dialogue"
"The source of power is our assumptions... in other words, our unexamined beliefs, preconceptions, biases, and stereotypes about each other and about the conflict itself."

"Trust," concludes Olalla, "is the precondition for coordinated action." This definition is particularly useful because it is not about what makes trust possible but what trust makes possible. It is about the relationship of trust to innovative results"
"Dialogue can only happen to the degree that the participants are willing to engage in the process. Only then can mistrust evolve into trust"

In retrospect, altho I had once thought that our crucial window of opportunity was 1990-2000, I now see that the regression of the past 6 years of this administration reflects how even the most aggressive work forwards can be cancelled by a few years of the opposite. Under Clinton, we addressed a variety of environmental problems. Under Bush we devolved dramatically. I think that is because Clinton was interested in dialog. Bush only wants closure.

The irony, is that despite how Bush promotes global corporate business interests these ideas about the value and difference of dialog vs debate are being articulated by global business leaders. Perhaps it simply reflects a narrow-minded over-simplification from this administration that misses the forest for the trees. Or a reflection of the inadequate business skills of the President.

But apparently other business leaders are smart enuf to learn and teach. If that is the case, perhaps unlike the old silk routes, we can trade not merely extractive resources and goods but actual ideas. We need a whole lot fo new ideas right now. Trade has historically opened intellectual frontiers. Perhaps is can also do that about global warming. There might be the hope that we are finally so globally interdependent that we must learn to negotiate differences rather than demand closure. If that might be the case, then we may still have a window of opportunity to deal with global warming.