Question

1. Frank Sherwood Rowland discovered that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) deplete the ozone in the atmosphere. He advocated for the elimination of CFCs. Meanwhile companies which produced these chemicals, as well as from individuals with vested interests (e.g. investments, employment) in these companies advocated against Dr. Rowland’s science. During the years of avocations, there was “ugliness” involved. In the end, many countries signed the Montreal Protocol because of his discovery. In a sense, he saved the world. Today we are facing a similar fight with global warming: Both sides of this issue are trying to engage the public. In the current case both sides have used “exaggerations” to do so. Is this ethical? Is it an effective way to engage the public? Explain your opinion.

Answer 1

It certainly is not ethical to use exaggeration for effective public engagement. The reason being that facts and objective analysis is paramount to effect any change in a situation as these are grounded in reality. Exaggeration is very effective yet very very vulnerable to disillusionment. If an exaggeration regarding any fact is unravelled and exposed, then it will cause public to loose confidence in authentic discourse and it will jeopardize the genuine initiative like Global warming awareness.