Climate Change: The EPA Has Gone Overboard (Full Debate)

Reducing carbon emissions is clearly good for the environment but often imposes substantial costs. The costs are most obvious when coal companies go bankrupt, but can affect everyone indirectly through higher energy costs, slower economic growth, reduced employment, and lower business profits. Has the Environmental Protection Agency considered the costs and benefits of its regulatory mandates fairly and appropriately? Is its Clean Power Plan a bold initiative to reduce carbon pollution at power plants, or an unconstitutional usurpation of power?

FOR THE MOTION:
Charles McConnell, Executive Director, Rice University’s Energy and Environment Initiative

Michael Nasi, Environmental and Energy Lawyer & Partner, Jackson Walker LLP

AGAINST THE MOTION:
Carl Pope, Former Executive Director, Sierra Club & Strategic Advisor to Michael Bloomberg

Jody Freeman, Founding Director, Harvard Law School Environmental Law and Policy Program

MODERATOR: John Donvan

[medaphysicsrepository]

the volume debate: has iq2 gone overboard with reducing the volume level of each upload ?

[whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa]

The entire debate is moot. CO2 is not pollution. Might as well label H2O or O2 as pollution, it's that insane.

[RodMartinJr]

The description starts out on the wrong foot. "Carbon" emissions are not "soot" (a pollutant), but clean, clear and vitally beneficial carbon dioxide. Calling the gas "carbon" is a misnomer and politically charged. Tsk, tsk. We're far closer to CO2 *_Extinction_* (150 ppm) than we are to CO2 Normal (1, 600 ppm). About 15, 000 BC, CO2 got so low we almost lost C3 plant species -- 85% of all plant species and nearly 99% of all food crop species. Thirty million years ago, when CO2 fell down to 800 ppm, plants freaked out and evolved C4 species to cope with the CO2 starvation. And that was planet-wide across numerous species.

Originally, CO2 was blamed for "bad" Global Warming, but the problem with that meme is that Global Warming is a good thing, so CO2 is not guilty, because the supposed "crime" isn't one. Not only that, CO2 does *_Not_* drive temperature the way the UN says it does. So, even if we needed more warmth (and we do, because we live in an Ice Age), we could not depend on CO2 to make it happen.

[ezequielzambrano]

Amazing channel, such smart and open minded people. Hope to attend one of these one day

[infochallenger]

I jumped to the middle of the video to see the moderator debating the left side. This is how I knew the left side was the skeptic one.

[matthewstone]

You have scientists being politicians and politicians trying to be scientists. What could go wrong?

[whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa]

"Reducing carbon emissions is clearly good for the environment" Uhh, no it's not. Do you have any idea how photosynthesis works?

[teknoaija]

i find these too tv like as opponents are using tactics for better spindoctoring that really have no place in intelligent debate.

[mpf]

Clearly which has been largely ignored and side tracked is that coal is non viable due to subsidies provided to alternates which is fake viability. Remove the subsidies and bill the customers the real cost see who is really viable.

[williambaikie]

IQ2 usually has some interesting presentations. This one failed! Calling CO2 'carbon pollution' is a bad start and it went down hill from there.

[romlyn]

Charles McConnell's opening statement that the clean power plan is under whelming - it said to me that the EPA hasn't gone far enough... wasn't he supposed to be arguing that the EPA went too far?

[izzyira]

All of your videos are very quiet compared to other youtube channels. I normally don't mind small differences in audio levels, but IQ2 is noticeably lower.

[jackbritton]

I live in California. My powerbill has gone up, every year!!!!

[seavphovkhmer]

i really love all of debat because it give me alot of knowledge.
but guide can you help me by put all of English subtitle in vedeo couse my english is second language so difficult to understand some point if hvae subtitle is make me easy than. Please help me

[calldwnthesky]

hey iq2 - get a better sound engineer. wouldn't a simple compressor on the signal coming from the mics, go a long way in evening out the highs and lows of volume, so the distance a speaker is from the mic wouldn't matter so much and, more importantly, we wouldn't have to almost strain to hear certain individuals?

[Synystr]

Charles McConnell sounds like he could do a killer George Clooney impression

[seanjenkins]

I've pretty much watched all of these debates on YouTube. I love the concept, the structure and I love John Donnvan

[romlyn]

Do nothing and in the future the global temperatures go up and the impact of climate change is greater. Using the argument that the future temp reduction is small, thus it is not worth doing anything - is idiotic. Do nothing - you get no reduction and you get an increase in future temperatures. We are trying to decrease future temperatures... that is why these laws and agreements are created. We have to do something. And since China is such a terrible polluter we don't have to do anything goes against the argument that the world is looking to the US to be a leader in solutions. The for team says two things that actually looses their argument. Are the US to provide new tech for the rest of the world? Are they going to lead? Or will they continue to burn dirty coal?

[donbags]

The dude that's on the EPA advocate team totally reminds me of Gilbert Gottfried.

[angpuppy]

Question: If we're putting the CO2 underground, aren't we risking releasing all that CO2 sometime in the future? Does the CO2 have no ill effects when it's buried?