Few people these days can still excite my interest on climate change. The topic has been excessively reported, argued to death, and converted into more than a few apocalyptic box office hits. This week we’ve been hearing about it even more, throughout the fifteenth United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen. Many observers expect this round of climate talks will be different, with U.S. support influencing China and India to join an accord — at last overcoming the three powers’ notorious reluctance to engage on such issues. The anticipated result of the eleven-day conference will be a new climate treaty to enhance the Kyoto Protocol that’s been in force since 2005.
Why even the debate? First and foremost, because we remain far from any pervasive agreement about the immediacy and impact of climate change. While some scientists argue that environmental catastrophe will soon result from carbon dioxide emissions, others believe that this has been drastically overstated. Moral and political discussion is another hot topic. Supporters of climate change resolutions often approach the topic with moral indignation and a doom-and-gloom mentality, but also the firm belief in a worldwide commitment to curbing carbon emissions. The opposition posits that the costs of climate change policies far outweigh their environmental benefits, and may reallocate resources away from more immediate global concerns such as poverty and health.
Last Tuesday, four well-informed and passionate experts had it out on this very subject — i.e., whether “climate change is mankind’s defining crisis and demands a commensurate response” — during the fourth instalment of Toronto’s Munk Debates. Their lively discussion focused on policy priorities and public will.
The pros, Elizabeth May and George Monbiot, began the debate with a decided advantage. Among the 1,100 people in attendance at the Royal Conservatory of Music, a pre-debate poll showed that 61 percent of the audience supported the resolution, while the remaining 39 percent voted against. However, 79 percent were open to changing their vote. Lord Nigel Lawson and Bjørn Lomborg argued the con position.
Below is a summary of the speakers’ arguments, followed by a list of major themes and accompanying arguments from the three-hour event.
SPEAKERS
» Lawson (former Chancellor to the Exchequer and the immediate past president of the British Institute of Energy Economics) argued that climate change has become a new secular religion where dissent is neither tolerated nor heard. He opposed the notion that it is the most important issue of our time by citing a survey which shows that only 8 percent of climate change scientists believe that claim to be true. He then debunked the credibility of a widely cited report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by referring to the recent “Climategate” scandal, in which hacked emails provided evidence that scientists had doctored data for the sake of the report. Lawson argued that even in the future worst-case scenario, as presented by the IPCC report, changes in living standards for the developing world by 2100 will be marginal — thus, the cost of drastically de-carbonizing the economy would exceed any benefits. He said that in developing countries where poverty is an overriding concern, economic development should be the higher priority. Since the carbon energy is the cheapest, it is immoral to impose anything else. Lawson spoke against the carbon trade bill in U.S. Congress that aims to impose punitive taxes on imports from countries that refuse to cooperate, such as India and China. He declared that mankind has adapted to climate changes over time, and will continue to do so, especially aided by technology. To behave otherwise, he concluded, would be scientifically unfounded, economically damaging, and immoral.
» May (environmentalist, writer, activist, lawyer, and leader of the Green Party of Canada) provided evidence that climate change is the top threat of our day — followed by the freshwater crisis, which will be exacerbated by climate change. Her fatalistic presentation argued that the change is demonstrated over generations, not individual years, and dramatic scientific evidence is found in melting glaciers and rising sea levels. The biggest threat, she said, is rising carbon dioxide levels — they are 30 percent higher today than at any time in the past million years — that will change the chemistry of our atmosphere. She claimed that we need to reduce fossil fuel use and protect and expand our forests. Finally, she emphasized that our political will has thus far failed to deliver on what we’ve been told by scientists, and that fact must change. (Shorter version: We need to act now!)
» Lomborg (director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist) argued that superlatives — i.e., whether this is the greatest challenge of our century — lead to a poor, reactionary way of thinking about helping the world. He suggested that we have many global pressing crises, like poverty, hunger, access to clean water and sanitation, and death from curable and infectious diseases. Economists, Lomborg continued, have said the greatest good that can be done for the world can be achieved through simple solutions like micro-nutrients, agricultural R&D, immunization, and the schooling of girls. He argued that though climate change is important, obsession with an immediate reaction neglects these issues and overlooks smarter environmental solutions. The costs of curbing global warming outweigh the benefits, he said, and the better response is to invest in research and development in order to cheapen environmental technology until it becomes ubiquitously accessible.
» Monbiot (columnist for the Guardian, and author of the best-selling Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning) began by contradicting the notion that climate change supporters purport inaccurate and optimistic scenarios. He presented the evidence that eight out of ten of the warmest years on record have taken place between 2001 and now. He drew on the largest study commissioned by the U.K., the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, which shows there are minimal costs to preventing climate change — as compared to the tremendous costs of living with it. Monbiot dispelled the idea that humankind can adapt to our changing environment, because in regions like sub-Saharan Africa, droughts have often lead to desperation and killing. He then argued that climate change versus foreign aid is a false dichotomy, because foreign aid budgets are very small, and will not be affected by increased spending on climate change. He finished by averring that Copenhagen is a historic moment which requires us to recognize our responsibility and do something about the environment.
THEMES AND ARGUMENTS
» IPCC Report: Both teams debated its credibility in the wake of Climategate.
» The Stern Review: Lawson reminded the audience that it’s never been peer reviewed, and is commonly disregarded as justification for governmental policies. Monbiot replied that there was no need for a peer review, because the Stern document is an “uber” review — a review of all other reviews.
» Scientific basis for climate change: This topic was surprisingly under-debated — except by May, who reiterated all the major points from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.
» Impact of climate change: May dominated this discussion with simplified explanations about how carbon dioxide in our atmosphere acidifies our oceans, and that the effect of losing permafrost is the release of more carbon dioxide into the environment. The debaters also discussed the effect of temperature change on global food production. Health concerns were briefly addressed when Lawson suggested that the only projected negative health outcome is the reduction of deaths from cold exposure.
» Global priorities: Whereas the pro debaters argued that climate change exacerbates problems in the developing world like drought, poverty, and HIV/AIDS and other diseases, the con side declared that there are smarter methods to help developing countries than by expecting them to cut carbon emissions. May and Monbiot argued that development agencies prioritize climate change above all, but Lomborg brought the contradictory point home when he suggested that OXFAM would never choose to negligibly slow climate change by end of the century over saving thousands of lives today.
» Global energy choices: This discussion centered on the costs of energy. Monbiot spoke about our current reliance on oil and the future need to rid ourselves of fossil fuel dependence for our own economic well-being. Lawson dismissed the notion that oil will peak soon, or that we are presently running out of it. He suggested that developing countries especially will continue to rely on oil for years to come because it is the cheapest energy, and they have already invested significant amounts of money in its use. Monbiot made the great point that it is often cheaper to implement new energy technologies in developing countries.
» Solutions: The pro side held that the Copenhagen convention is moving us in the right direction, and that cutting carbons is key. The con side recommended economic development as the most efficient way to protect humans and species. Focus should therefore be placed on immediate concerns, and energy solutions should be made cheaper in order to be implemented worldwide.
*
Monbiot was the most thorough debater, holding strong opinions and citing sources on every topic. Unfortunately, his melodrama about his experiences in Africa (and his overindulgent repetition of the phrase, “How lucky do you feel?”) detracted from the strength of his arguments. May emerged as perhaps the weakest speaker of the evening, with an overly defensive and defiant personality. This was especially clear when her opponents denigrated her for using enormous exaggerations as truths, such as her proclamation that climate change is humankind’s most immediate problem because it aggravates the incidence of HIV/AIDS.
Lawson was very comprehensive and perhaps the most calm contender, though sometimes it appeared as if he had checked out halfway through the event. There is no question that Lomborg was the evening’s most persuasive and charismatic speaker, although he was derided for creating false dichotomies. Unfortunately, at times he seemed to slip into May’s cheap-shot trap, such as when he claimed that both opponents were actually standing on his and Lawson’s side. But in all honesty, he was the one who won my support.
In the end, the audience voted once again, with 53 percent still believing that climate change is humankind’s defining crisis and demands a commensurate response. The con side scored a marginal increase in agreement, with 47 percent now doubting that claim. No one position ever seemed to dominate the debate, and I was left eager to learn more.
best seo forums: Thanks for sharing such an brilliant post. I make sure to visit this post regularly. keep sharing more and more..
Seenloitering: The “gender analysis” in this article is upside down. Marie Calloway is a threat to the status quo because she threatens the myth that women are morally superior, above...
Jefry: I do not really like to read a story like a novel or a real story but I think this is very interesting and need to be read
Legong: I know I am replying to this pathetic, racist statement a little late and the whole ignorant rant probably doesn’t even deserve a reply. Wanhenglo, if we were all to generalise about...
Legong: I know I am replying to this pathetic, racist statement a little late and the whole ignorant rant probably doesn’t even deserve a reply. Wanhenglo, if we were all to generalise about...
Sky Goodden: This is startling, refreshing, overdue, and damn good. Thank you, Shary.
Mark: It’s not just in Canada, it seems all over artists don’t get the local recogtnition they should. I was in Malaga where Picasso was born and it is much different, but then he is...
Guest: I didn’t want babies or a period any more. I KNEW without a doubt I did not want children so I had been asking for a hysterectomy since I was 19. I finally got it at 39. My...
Djzklj: Pretty interesting article, despite that I don’t wanna make a voyage there
Sanyo Seiki: I love this game! Very addicted! Sanyo Seiki