Not a fair debate!

This blog post corresponds partly to Nikes post on Debate vs. consensus.
 
I am really disappointed by the selection of speakers at the WRF. For me a controversial debate is essential for conference that aims for scientific progress. While everybody is attacking the conventional economists and their methods (GDP, discounting, cost-benefits analysis etc.) they don't give them a fair chance to respond.

There are quite some people out there with other stances on the issue on resource consumption. And yes, there are even people criticizing the concept of sustainability. These are not only freaks but also professors from well-known institutions such as Oxford University with reasonable arguments that need to be considered. For one example I want to refer to Wilfred Beckerman and his book “A Poverty of Reason - Sustainable Development and Economic Growth“
 
Even though I strongly disagree with most of their arguments and think that their reasoning is not sound, I would like to have them in the workshops and the panel discussions. I am sure that they would make a valuable contributions to the discussions and in addition make the whole event much more lively. Right now we only have just the some opinion presented from different angels.
 
A more controversial debate would in my eyes not negatively effect the communication of “our message” as Nike indicated, but on the contrary would serve the interest of the environmental community as we have the better arguments on our side. I trust the media and the policy makers to be capable of forming their own decisions and the organizers should not try to influence the decision making process by the selection of speakers.
 
Debate, dispute and conflictive opinions are at the heart of democracy, science and progress- unfortunately can’t see all that at the WRF.
--- Joss Bracker