Topics: Energy
Public Release Date: July 01, 2022
This debate took place in front of a live audience in partnership with the Richmond Forum on April 30, 2022.
The dangers of climate change are “no longer over the horizon.” Humanity may soon pass the “point of no return.” These are the phrases U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres used to describe what he called an “utterly inadequate” global response to rising temperatures. In fact, world leaders and environmental advocates have long demanded structural overhauls to the way we consume and produce. Standing in the way, Guterres noted, is a sheer lack of will. But if we were to decisively act, and restructure our global economy with the climate in mind, who would shoulder the burden? Is it actually feasible? Assuming finite resources, where does climate change rank in the pecking order of global problems? Or should our collective focus orient more toward human capacity for adaptation?
In this timely debate, Open to Debate and the Richmond Forum convene four leading global thinkers on climate science, geopolitics, and international economics to take on this question: Can humans adapt to climate change?
ARGUING YES:
Bjorn Lomborg: Author of the Bestsellers Cool It and The Skeptical Environmentalist
Matthew E. Kahn: Provost Professor of Economics and Spatial Sciences, University of Southern California
ARGUING NO:
Michele Wucker: Economic Policy Expert & Founder, Gray Rhino & Company
Kaveh Madani: Environmental Scientist, & Former Vice President of the United Nations Environment Assembly Bureau, & Former Deputy Head of Iran’s Department of Environment
MODERATOR:
John Donvan: Emmy award-winning journalist
The question is a no-brainer and thus not a good debate question. I think the moderator framed the question in the intro as how much should we invest in adaptation vs. mitigation, which I think is a better debate question but would probably get too technical for a general audience to follow. In the end I found the debate disappointing and not very informative (although following climate change is part of my professional life).
I think the side in favor of the proposition may have lost more of the audience by being obnoxious. I think they might have been more persuasive by presenting very short, factual examples of adaptation without filling up their allotted time. Brevity is a virtue and getting to the point saves everyone time. That strategy may have won the debate in half the time.
I just read Pielke jr. There is climate change, but it is not casual of any weather you see. The UN’s IPCC said so. And yet “intelligent” people have the debate they do. As the title of the article points out, climate change makes us stupid.