Climate Change | FULL DEBATE | Doha Debates

#DearWorld, is there still time to save our planet?

From floods to forest fires, climate change is devastating the Earth. Can we rise to meet this challenge? Join us as journalist Naomi Klein, author Bjorn Lomborg and former president of Mauritius Ameenah Gurib-Fakim debate the best solutions to the climate crisis during COP26.

00:00 - Climate Change
01:00 - Opening Remarks
06:14 - Speaker Introductions
06:39 - Naomi Klein
10:39 - Bjorn Lomborg
13:24 - Mauritius Ameenah Gurib-Fakim
16:59 - Online Votes and Reactions
21:24 - Majlis (Critical Conversations and Solutions)
51:16 - Audience/Student Questions
1:08:28 - Second Round of Voting and Online Reactions
1:13:12 - Final reactions by the debaters
1:20:36 - Closing Remarks

Don’t Settle for a Divided World. Think. Debate. Act. Let’s find solutions to the world's most pressing problems.

Doha Debates examines the world's most pressing challenges through live debates, digital videos, a TV series, blogs and podcasts. This innovative approach includes Majlis-style conversations designed to bridge differences, build consensus and identify solutions to urgent global issues.

[stsampan]

I watch the climate for 84 years. The only change I noticed lately is slight cool down. High temperatures records happen in the Dust Bowl time of the 1930's. Ever since it's cooling down. Yes it was warming up since the Little Ice Age, naturally. But last more than a decade we burn about 30% more of the renewable solar energy (stored in that firewood) to heat our homes.

[kevinodom]

$200 for anyone that can prove me wrong.
"Forest fires and droughts are not currently being caused by climate.
change."
IPCC

[penglim]

I am just wondering if the climate change is due to the changes in the core-mantle boundaries. Are there research done on correlation in the changes in the inner earth with the outer earth? What had the analysis of the ancient ice shown about changes in climate since long long ago and the present? I am just wondering.

[MilagroBay]

My final point. Governments are very very slow making change. They have shown they are not the right entity's to create change. Private industry can move much faster in getting technologies implemented.

[johnanderson]

Lomborg starts off with a red herring. The number of people dying each year due to climate disasters is irrelevant to the debate. That the number is going down can be attributed to many factors like better forecasting, better construction technology, etc. This is a good thing but barely peripheral to the discussion which is what is the state of the environment going forward. Then he complains that the old ways of approaching climate change aren't working. What ways are these? Politicians flying around the world talking about all the things they will never follow through on? We have done nothing substantial to combat climate change and we never will because those who profit from the status quo have too much money and power. But they do give us shills like Lomborg ( Hoover Institution, PragerU for gods sake) telling us scary stories about those mean greenies that want us all to be poor, hungry and cold.

[Uriel-Septim.]

is this about fixing problems or getting "justice" ? some of those woman are just too emotional and biased with an agenda against capatalism and rich people.

"There have always been and always will be those who are driven by hate and want to blame those who are happy, creative and productive for their misery." --Terry Goodkind.

[MilagroBay]

Being a patent holder way back in the late 70"s i was into creative technologies to solve global warming even back in those days. I know for a fact that the oil companies have bought up patents since the 50's I have plenty of documentation that prove they did not want solutions. One oil company SUN Oil as example is guilty of this.

[CharlesWT-TX]

Bjorn Lomborg is an eye of sanity in a hurricane of climate change hysteria.

[RichardRoy]

Bjorn Lomborg? The guy from "Prager U?" You couldn't get someone serious?

[MilagroBay]

The bottom line there are many existing technologies that will drastically reduce our problems. When he speak of batteries. He does not address the fact that molten salt storage drops less the 1% if heat load. Which means that you can have power being delivered over a much longer time. The issue is we are not implementing the many technologies that have been produced .

[roshnihidangmayum]

Thank you doha debate for bringing out more2 sensitive issues

[iamhudsdent]

It is not a tipping Point. It is not an irreversible moment for humanity. It is simply natural climate variability. So much evidence shows this. Get a grip.

[beyondaboundary]

If this were a debate about slavery in 1860, Lomborg would be saying that slavery has become much more humane since 1600, whips have become less painful, and overseers are more enlightened. He would say that abolitionists are extremists who want to destroy the miraculous engine of prosperity that is the plantation system, and that slavery should be gradually reformed instead of abolished. He would also say to critics, "Have you ever eaten sugar or worn cotton cloth? You're a hypocrite, then." And he would bask in the glow of fan letters from plantation owners in the southern U.S., Cuba, and Brazil.

[Lee-Van-Cle]

Mr. Lomborg, it is your capitalistic presupposition that made people need 10% more. As a human being, what we need is a better connection with people and with nature as well.
It is the capitalistic innovation that creates the problem, so will the problem be solved by the same token? That sounds contradictory.

[VHelander]

Horrible debate. Bad format and too many people talking.

[robertkb]

Can we rise to the challenge? Yes
Will we? No

There are too many entrenched interests in particular actions rather than solutions for us (define “us” as anything more than a tiny local community - at a very small scale things may happen simply because their focus can more easily be narrow).

Even the framing from Ms Fakhry at the beginning reinforces the collective action problem, “….the time to act is now…” but this illustrates precisely the problem: we have to act but aren’t to be bothered with clearly defining whether there’s a problem (compared to the past) and what exactly that problem is. If we can’t define the problem clearly there’s no chance we can agree on how to solve whatever it is, in large part because we’re not all looking at the same problem.

Picking an easy way to illustrate how the lack of clarity of the problem prevents us from solving it: if you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions one of the fastest ways to do so would be to increase coal consumption in India. While this seems counterintuitive, it’s because most of us are looking at the problems (note I’m emphasizing that this isn’t a single problem, but many) at the wrong scale. Rural India burns vast amounts of wood for heating and cooking, simply changing that fuel source to coal would drastically lower greenhouse gas emissions while simultaneously improving the quality of life in those regions. Yet because the global discussion is almost always focused on semi-industrialized nations where coal is a relatively pollution-heavy energy source we deny places where tremendous gains could be had for negligible costs simply because it doesn’t align with a world where magical thinking has ever been successful.

Instead of always looking at the big things and thinking we can force our views on those things onto everyone else, we must focus on narrow and concrete things. But those very actions that are readily accomplishable aren’t sufficiently flashy to benefit either the politicians or the fund raisers (but I repeat myself), so they won’t get funded, and we won’t rise to the challenge.

Having said my piece I’ll now go watch the rest of the debate, which I’ve been looking forward to all day.

P.S. if you disagree please explain my error in logic or your disagreement with my assumptions, and keep in kind that I necessarily omit many nuances, so please interpret using the rule of charity.

[JG-qtpn]

Isn't Ghida Fakhry the one who discredited herself in an interaction with Douglas Murray?

[andersnilsson]

Lomborg is not a scientist, he is a lobbyist

[ubegrenada]

Great debate. The prime minister of Barbados give one of the best speeches at the UN Debate on climate change but time for actions is now. A BOLD initiative is needed so a better world for all can be realized.
Too much corporate power over the politicians so the will to really make the change is not there when money is the driving force to political power. The youths of today are the leaders of tomorrow but the old leaders of today are afraid of the young minds and their solution so they are hardly given the chances to build a better world.

[froginhotwater]

I'm wondering if moving to get zero I'll create one of the largest transfer of wealth to governments and global companies, as well greater control eople people and a reduction in democrecy. I wonder if a free and open public debate on the science would be helpful to the debate. Or we could just focus on reducing pollution instead.