You make very good points. And I agree with them.

But we've chosen to go with a Gandhian approach rather than a low-key "underground" approach. Under these circumstances and with the nature of this problem, we believe this is has a better chance of success.

We absolutely know that a large public movement will be denounced, and opponents will try to co-opt and redirect the movement and subvert it.

We know that climate is complex and solutions are not easy or guaranteed. This is true of nearly everything in life—nothing is guaranteed and most worthwhile things are very hard. That doesn't mean that the solutions shouldn't be led by the people who are most competent and knowledgeable about the problem. Those are the people who give us the best chance of success.

Whether it's running movements or repairing climates, we always work from incomplete knowledge and a genuine chance of failure.

That is life. But it would be shameful to not try our best. It would be shameful to give up in advance. It would be shameful to let the Earth be destroyed and life itself be sharply diminished without trying very, very hard to make things better.

There is room for many approaches. There are numerous climate groups and a huge variety of activist groups. If any had succeeded, we would not be starting a new group. But The Saners is a good idea that hasn't been tried in quite this way before.

It may or may not be the one that makes the difference. I make my case for it, not because I believe that is guarantees success, but because I believe it MIGHT, and it's a moral necessity to try.

I'd love for there to also be "under the radar" movements. The more the merrier. Perhaps the multiplicity of efforts itself will make the difference. Some historians believe that King would not have succeeded in integrating the South if there had not also been Malcolm X and The Black Panthers and a whole spectrum of activists.

I like what you write. Following. :-)