It would help many discussions to better distinguish between means and ends. For example the one about the energy transition. Its primary purpose is to combat climate change. The need for this should be out of the question in the year 2021. Issues such as Power-to-X, hydrogen, CO 2 storage, geo-engineering, wind power, photovoltaics, grid expansion or e-mobility are something else. These are means to an end – and therefore thoroughly debatable.

The impure separation of means and end is at best tiresome, in the worst case perfidious and manipulative. Examples of this are provided by Elisabeth Holmes, founder of the failed health unicorn Theranos. The journalist John Carreyrou has described how Holmes typically wrapped up potential customers, investors or employees: she mostly told maudlin stories about how bad illnesses are and how great it would be to have better remedies for them.

Attack Emotionally This is a pretty cheap way to get the audience emotionally involved, and also ignores the topic: After all, nobody seriously doubts that diseases are bad. The real question would have been whether and how the Theranos technology would help against this (namely not at all).

Gregor Honsel has been TR editor since 2006. He prefers to ride a bike – without an auxiliary drive.

But whoever asks too persistently for details after hyper-emotional framing, works quickly pedantic and heartless. For years Holmes was able to avoid an oath of technical disclosure. And since then I’ve been even more suspicious when someone works with great emotional force on things that nobody questions anyway.

Always everything from the beginning In my impression, such emotional frontal attacks are more likely when it comes to topics related to the energy transition Rare. More often, however, is a simple waste of time. It feels like practically every relevant paper begins with Adam and Eve or the Paris climate protection agreement – probably out of the feeling that the need for better solar cells or more economical air conditioning systems must first be deduced in an academic manner. Nothing wrong, but nothing new either.

The reference to the great, noble purpose can also serve as a murder argument to stifle a discussion. In my last post on power-to-liquid, for example, I was accused of wanting to torpedo the energy transition. No. PtL is not “the energy turnaround”, but just a means to an end – by no means without alternatives. (grh)