Last night I made sure to watch the Munk debate, which posed the question, “[Is] Climate Change Mankind’s Defining Crisis, and [does it] Demand a Commensurate Response.”

On the Pro side we had the Canadian Green Party Leader, Elizabeth May, and a weekly columnist for the Guardian and author, George Monbiot. While the Con side was represented by climate change expert and organizer of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, Bjorn Lomborg, and the founder and chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Nigel Lawson.

Each of these people is very important to this debate, as they each represent a specific group. Elizabeth May represents the extremist-climate change activist, George Monbiot the realist-climate change activist, Bjorn Lomborg the realist-effective change activist, and Lord Nigel Lawson the extremist-capitalism activist. It’s important to note that last fact, as many people don’t realize Lord Nigel is responsible for privatizing many British sectors and deregulating financial sectors during his tenure in office, as well, note that his Global Warming Policy Foundation is an organization which promotes skepticism on global warming.

The topic was not focused entirely on what to do about climate change, but whether it exists, if something should be done, and to what extent.

Each of their arguments can be summed up into a few words:

The debate was a heated one, with Elizabeth May getting very angry, and yelling at the opposition (which is something she’s known for in parliament), which led to her microphone being cut off by the mixers. Yet, her voice could still be heard in the bleed from the other microphones. She was promptly given a “time out”, along with Mr. Lomborg, until she calmed down enough to participate in the debate again.

Elizabeth May and Bjorn Lomborg resorted to insults and degradation of character to assist their perspectives, while the British representatives conducted themselves in a profession debate manner, rarely resorting to these practices. George Monbiot came off very respectable, with checked facts, and first-hand experience to share, along with a very polite demeanor in respect to the debate.

Going into the debate the audience of 1100 people was asked to cast their votes on the resolution, voting 61-39%. Post-debate results came out as 53-47%, declaring that although the con side had gained 8% on their side, the resolution still favoured the pro.

Most people think that this is mankind’s defining crisis, and believe that our effort should be focused on overcoming it, and its effects.

What are your thoughts?

[Watch debate here]

Popularity: 3% [?]

Technorati Tags: Climate Change, Debate, Education, Munk, World

Climate Change · Debate · Education · Munk · World

<< Musical Similarities and the Issues Surrounding Them

We Need Another Day Off – Four Day Work Week >>