Suggestions for the Breakthrough People

I been reading the Breakthrough blog and the Breakthrough Gen blog. The Breakthrough Generation people are certainly having some growing pains trying to figure out what they are trying to do.

I feel the need to weigh in. Here's a letter I am going to send them:

Hello,
I have been following the blog, and I have some observations and suggestions.

First of all, I think Breakthrough is great, and I'm glad there is a think tank that is serious about coming up with a coherent strategy for action. I especially like the posts about urban poverty, Brazil, and strategies for spreading the message.

However, I have some suggestions. It seems that the discussion is pretty unfocused and disorganized. Ideas kind of get tossed out but usually without follow-up. Perhaps there needs to be more vigorous labeling and organizing of posts so that there is a way for everyone to even see what topics you have covered. It may also be a good idea to have a place for links where things are not arranged chronologically but by topic. I just think there needs to be a place to put articles that are "finished" and more like official statements of the Breakthrough Generation as a group. That would also be good because most of the posts can be seen as mainly personal or individual opinions that are works in progress, while these "papers" would be more concise and official. Then it is easier for the public to have an understanding of what Breakthrough Gen really stands for, and also there are papers you can easily refer people to instead of a set of conversations.

This brings me to a more general critique. I understand part of the think tank is figuring out what should Breakthrough stand for anyway. At the same time, your task is also to build a name for Breakthrough as an institution and a school of thought. You are trying to shift the paradigm. Then the way you organize yourselves and present your ideas matters a lot.

In other words, when you decide to critique other people's tactics, you need to understand that offering critique in itself is a strategic decision, and from what you say, people will be forming impressions of Breakthrough even if you think you are posting as an individual. Furthermore, every person has a need to feel that what they are doing is worthwhile. This is especially true for environmentalists since no environmentalist does it for the money although hopefully more of them will soon. :) Then, if you are going to critique people, you should expect people to be very defensive about it, and you need to consider whether critiquing them helps Breakthrough or just makes people angry. But if you commit to posting your critique, you need to be ready to stand your ground, drive your point through, and not get sidetracked.

Everything from how long your posts are to the wording that you choose matters when making the case for Breakthrough. It seems to me that many of you are trying to argue based on logic only. Logic is useful, but when trying to promote a concept, it's more than just about a logical argument. It's about imagery, catchy slogans, the frequency of recurring ideas, and organization of ideas such that it's easy for people to take in and remember.

I think Breakthrough is really about propaganda and advertising. I recommend reading a book called Propaganda by Ed Bernays. He coined the term public relations and wrote this book in 1928. I know Micheal Shellenberger and Ted Norhaus have said that it's not just about coming with a catchy slogan, and I agree with that. However, propaganda itself is not just about a catchy slogan. A slogan is only one of many tools available for making your ideas relevant and seemingly "obvious" to people. The real art would not be to convince people you are right from arguing with them logically, but inducing them to come to the conclusions that you want them to.

I'm not an expert by any means, but I've been running lectures at MIT for a few years as part of the Lecture Series Committee. We helped organize and make posters for Ted and Micheal's talk at MIT. We also organized the Big Picture Panel, a kickoff lecture event for the Focus on Climate Change events. All of our events were very well-attended.

For the publicity for the Big Picture Panel event, came up with two sets of one-liners that we hoped would help everyone focus.

This was one set of them.

Sustainable careers are not just
for do-gooders.

Sustainable energy is not just about
solar panels, wind power, and fuel cells.

And we are not just waiting for the
miracle gadget that everyone can just buy!

The other set

What are the biggest obstacles to sustainable energy?

What is being done right now?

How will this be affecting your career?

Finally, we had a line "Come and hear what the expert professors have to say."





For the Breakthrough lecture, we also had three one-liners

For all the public attention climate change has won, U.S. greens
have failed to achieve national political action on the issue.

Nordhaus and Shellenberger call for a new approach to activism.

It takes entrepreneurs, organizers, engineers, scientists, and YOU.

We also had a slogan "Environmentalism is Dead. Long live Environmentalism."



In contrast, the poster they sent us to use said "Clean Energy Revolution
Creating a Transformational Student Movement." We thought that was hopelessly vague and fluffy. Our messages were very tailored for the MIT audience, who is very tech/gadget-friendly and views environmentalism vs making money as an either-or proposition, etc.




What I would suggest for the Breakthrough Generation is to do more summaries and lists on what exactly are the most important ideas of Breakthrough, lists of criticisms, and what you intend to research. I would like personally like to see more social commentary. For example, why does libertarianism seem to resonate so much with young people these days and what does it mean for sustainable energy? I also notice that many environmentalists love to criticize China and/or otherwise make demands. But there is not enough effort in understanding what is going on in China anyway and the culture and mindset of the Chinese. For this reason, I pretty much cringe every time I hear environmentalists talk about China, and it is clear to me they are not going to get anywhere with any Chinese people. James Fallows from the Atlantic is probably the best China correspondent, and actually Obama's head Asia foreign policy guy Jeffrey Bader is very good as well.