The Munk Debates: Climate Change

Be it resolved climate change is mankind’s defining crisis, and demands a commensurate response…

Last night I popped in on the latest Munk debate in Toronto on climate change. The Munk Debates are probably one of Canada’s most entertaining public intellectual throw downs, drawing world class authors and activists from all over the globe. At this debate: Elizabeth May, George Monbiot, Bjorn Lomborg and Lord Nigel Lawson.

The debate suffered from dramatic and political excesses, but nonetheless was a neat capture – often in its dramatic excesses – of the state of the current (non)debate. In many ways the protagonists talked past each other as (in the case of Elizabeth May) they shouted each other down. Appropriately May and Lawson sat on the physical wings of the debate – they were ultimately the least compelling, least conciliatory and most politicking of the bunch. They did no favours to their respective sides, which is a shame. More broadly speaking the lesson here is clear: rhetorical flourish and dramatic exhibition can hurt ones cause as much as help it. These cards need to be played sparingly, and craftily. May and Lawson either did not care, or read their audience wrong. An intellectual debate is not a political rally.

George Monbiot and Bjorn Lomborg were more composed: each was passionate, each was articulate and each was generous with the other debaters. They were easy to listen to, even as they made their own logical missteps.

The strongest arguments on each side seemed to be this.

Pro: Climate change exacerbates all other global crises; its effects increase in intensity and speed exponentially and our window of action is very small. The solution to the great pandemics – security, food and water access, education (etc) – is on a road that runs through turning back climate change.

Con: Climate change is a serious problem, but it’s effects on other global crises are exaggerated. The difference of two degrees in temperature by 2100 will not be so extreme as to warrant large-scale de-carbonization of the global economy, nor can such de-carboning possibly be politically or morally enforced in developing countries whose road to development and wealth is through the cheap, plentiful carbon-based energy whose infrastructure exists.

Who won? As far as the debate itself goes, I think the Con’s made a stronger case. The Munk debate results more or less agree with me, if marginally:

PRE-DEBATE

PRO: 61% CON: 39%

POST-DEBATE
PRO: 56% CON: 44%