The few leaders we have in the climate movement all have their own thoughts on what’s necessary to fight climate change. You have those who are for 100% renewable energy, those who think a renaissance of nuclear power is necessary, and those who argue strictly for degrowth because no amount of technology will be able to save us. They each try their best to galvanize the actions of those around them to follow their cause, or better yet they have a certain charisma that attracts others to follow them. Whichever the case, these leaders each have a cause they believe strongly in, strong enough to attract the attention of others.
However, there is only one most efficient path to follow, one critical path that will require the least resources to achieve maximum effect. Which of our leaders are leading us down that critical, most optimal path? We do not know, because no effort has been made to lay down all tasks that need completing. There has been no work breakdown structure (WBS), and thus no agreement of all the necessary people needed to participate in the project to actually carry out their responsibilities according to the WBS.
One might argue that we do not need to follow the most efficient path, just any path that will get us to our goal of reducing emissions by 2030. If we are to make an effort in terms of time and money spent changing the way we do things, why not follow the path where that effort can have a maximum impact? Right now we are not even following a path toward lower emissions, we are simply standing still in our status quo, emitting ever-increasing amounts of CO2 as we wait for time to take us into the future.
There is a fire burning in our building and we need to find the path out quickly. If we stand still that will be the end of us. Which path do we take? Our leaders are each telling us to go down a particular path to exit the building but nobody knows for sure whether that path is the critical path. Until someone has done the necessary analysis, we will not know which path gives us the best odds of escape. The odds are higher if the path is shorter and faster, i.e. is the critical path.
Most of the time our leaders have the best intentions in mind. However, a strong belief does not always signal the right action to take.