It's a pleasure to hear George speak of anything. Educated, empathic and passionate. He's right. The system is rotten to the core. It's a Psychopathic power that doesn't care. We should have scrapped Fossil fuels 30 years ago. But the power in place, doesn't want to be dethroned....and it has pushed ever harder to protecting itself. This isn't about fixing a broken cog of corruption, it's about removing the entire corrupt machine with all of it's cogs.
Years ago I lived in a place in England, high unemployment is still a problem, where I was living the leader of the council took a whole valley, turned it into a landfill and stuck a golf course on top, 'tip to tee' was the fanciful name of the project. My view then and now is that they could have sent that rubbish to an incinerator and instead of the golf course they could have built a willow tree farm to make heating pellets, that fertilized by sewage sludge(they do this sort of stuff in Scandinavia) ultimately with this they could have heated schools and council buildings and created more employment within the borough, ultimately saving money. Maybe I'm just a madman but it seemed to me to make more sense than the mess of landfill and adding the eigth or ninth golf course to a place that already had too many golf courses.
“The 98% claim (from 2009) was based on a single survey by a University of Illinois professor and a graduate student. They sent a 2-minute online survey to 10,257 earth scientists. They got 3,146 responses to only these two questions…” The first question asked, “When compared with pre-1800 levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” The second asked, “Do you think that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Ninety percent of the respondents said that the mean temp had risen, while 82 percent said that human activity was a significant factor. However, the term “significant” was never defined. Furthermore, according to the Heartland Institute, most skeptic scientists would agree with the statistic if the term was defined. The video explains that when formulating the 97 percent statistic, researchers used only the responses from “climate scientists.” However, only 5 percent of the respondents - 79 people - were climate scientists. So, out of 10,257 academics that the professor and graduate student identified as worthy survey participants, only 79 were in agreement with their final finding. When calculated, those 79 scientists - now accepted as 97 percent - make up a meager 0.77 percent of academics. And, since only 97 percent of the 79 answered positively (which would be 76.63 people - so we will round to 77), the percentage shrinks from 0.77 percent to 0.75 percent. www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/do-97-scientists-really-believe-global-warming
And don't forget the first half of the 19th century was in the little ice age. The point of measure used by environmentalists, the year 1850, starts at what was a cool period. This exaggerates the increase of temperature. The environmentalists' goal is to return the Earth to the temperature of 1850. We can and have reduced CO2 emissions, and further reductions may be achieved, but it seems unlikely we'll get to the temperatures of 1850 without the aid of another ice age. Seeing this is unlikely, it appears then that the demand for this to be the benchmark is based on the goal an unending war against industry, capitalism, meat consumption, prosperity, and even people - many of these environmentalists are also anti-natalists. Moreover, environmentalism is being used to further the agenda of mass immigration and social justice, which is being repackaged as "climate justice".
The whole view of consensus is not based of just this one study. You know that right? People aren't just saying, and basing, all of their views on this one study. It's quite similar how to climate scientists base their view on a cumulative of things. There is not one key to this situation. But, if you really wanted did dispute a consensus, you could call up official scientific communities around the world and ask them their standpoint on the issue. >according to the Heartland Institute So now one for you, because no one here is basing their opinion of consensus off one study. You realize that the Heartland Institute has clear ties to the very people that have fiancial interests in man made climate change not being a thing, right? I mean, you've asked about a study, and said a lot about it. But in that same mannar, you Hearland Institute isn't exactly the same as world wide scientific organizations. So while I can tell you to call up respected scientific organizations around the world, are you sure you can convince me that Heartland Institute isn't a propaganda tool financed by people that are paid by private oil industries.
"Bloomington-based Charlemagne Institute, a nonprofit conservative organization dedicated to "defending and advancing Western civilization."" This is your source? How aout going to the source material? Try www.ncbi.com instead. Use you head and don't be a sheep.
Sixteen thousand views for what should be the most pressing issue for the entire humanity… looks like the world is absolutely doomed. But look at the bright side - Universe is under no obligation to care about whether biological life exists or not. I guess here’s our answer to “where is everybody?”
A Major Sticking Point with Progress and Aspiration is those who are Promoting the Impossible of Everyone Must Agree on Everything. This can then becomes a Clever Stall Tactic.
The crucial factor for me in this debate is George's claim that capitalism is "innately unreformable" and "generates its own momentum". If true, I'm with him all the way. Otherwise, I am inclined to believe in the opposing side that we could, at least in theory, have private ownership of trade and industry conducted in a benevolent, highly regulated way.
Regulations come at an expense to the business that eats away its profits. The purpose of a business is to extract profits while delivering goods & services. Naturally, any capitalist corporation is trying to maximizing its profits even at the expense of any environmental concerns. Asking a private enterprise to self-regulate is like asking a heroin addict to stop shooting drugs... Good luck. Even if you find a business that is willing to self-regulate, any cost of that regulation will be passed to the customers that may not welcome the added cost.
Many great ideas for change and good hearted people within the capitalist system have come up against the "fiduciary duty" to maximise profits for the shareholders. Bam. That's at the core, and it's not going to change.
@@edredwhittingham4417 that's an interesting response in itself. I used to think activists banging on about overthrowing capitalism were silly Marxists in disguise, who didn't understand adaptive change is the realistic, pragmatic option. I was wrong. I was an overly optimistic about a system which is driving us headlong into a collapse scenario, while accelerating all the way! The system has checkmated itself, and either planned or unplanned will be replaced with something else.
You need to convince the banks and investment firms to put their money where their mouth is and stop building holiday complexes in places that YOU say should be underwater in 10 years. That is, IF, you want us to take you seriously. You can't even convince the rich to drop their behaviour.
Many banks and big investment groups have moved away from coal based investments already. It's already starting to progress but it's very slow...probably too slow.
I think capitalism is the wrong word. I think they mean growth, or at least "growth capitalism" aka, the assumption that the more GDP a country rakes in, the better for its people. Distribution of GDP is rarely the outcome of growth. Most governments pocket that growth, spend it on controversial policies or use it to subsidise polluters they're in bed with and it's something that both capitalist and communist governments are guilty of. They're as bad as each other. Like Lakota tribesman Russel Means said, 'Marxism is just as alien a concept to indigenous culture as capitalism'. When you talk about capitalism being the issue, people automatically assume you're for communism. Capitalism just means making money which can be done without destruction and exploitation. The real issue is growth. The first government to move away from the concept is New Zealand and only in the last six months but apparently they're already seeing the results. Hopefully we all follow suit but first we're going to have to unlearn everything we were taught in school. Juniper allured to it when he mentioned changing the measure of GDP but he didn't mention to what. I suggest not changing it but replacing it with a unit of measurement that takes into account diversity and abundance of crops for human consumption and access to green spaces, a good education, healthy food, clean drinking water and health services and from a less anthropocentric point of view, diversity and abundance of wild flora and fauna. Those are the most important things I can think of for now.
David W we were still here, just not human yet. If you believe in human evolution, you have to believe we’ve also survived everything that’s been thrown at life on earth. Also modern humans have gone through about a half dozen population bottlenecks caused by environmental factors in the last 100,000 years.
Our existence is predicated on a certain balance. While we may have the power to disturb the balance we must understand we do not possess the power to regain balance. This is where humanity has gone rogue and misused its power to create an imbalance rather than achieving higher levels of balance itself by bringing our desires under control through meditation. Human is the only species that has such a power to imagine. All other species are always stuck in the cycle of their limited possibilities. We have something boundless i.e. imagination and we need to use it to attain higher consciousness rather than again going back to the animal state of boundedness where we are indulging some sensory pleasures. Human life is a privilege to attain higher consciousness.
It is Very Important to Consider China and India because We Must have a Good Understanding of How to Manage a Very Large Population. Especially when they are Told by Their Own Governments that they ALL can be Winners.
Seems to me that everyone in this panel agrees that the changes that need to happen can not happen with the current forms of capitalism that exists in the world today. I think religion is more dangerous than capitalism in itself, can't really convince a population to affect change if they think their imaginary friend is going to save them in the end.
Yamin is a lawyer for an extremist environmental group and glued herself to an oil company's offices (so much for her legal acumen); no science background. Monbiot studied zoology in uni; no other science background. Turner is a former finance guy and apparatchik; no science background. Juniper has a BS in zoology and psych, MS in conservation, and has worked for various sustainability orgs and environmental orgs. *Juniper is the sole debater has any expertise in anything scientific and climate science specifically.*
@@CriticalMink _how is it that only Juniper's degree counts as a background in science?_ Please read what I wrote again. Monbiot has a background in science but not in climate science and does not work in that field. In stark contrast, Juniper has a background in science and the environment and works in that field. Since he's talking outside his area of expertise (education+work experience, as I've formulated it), Monbiot's views on the environment are just as valuable as a footballer's views on volleyball.
@@carlbennett2417 _Don't need to be a scientist to understand system breakdown._ But you do most certainly need to have a scientific education and/or considerable work experience in a scientific field in order to debate a scientific topic. _Besides, ecology (not zoology) is a systems science._ By your criterion, you've eliminated Monbiot then. That leaves only Juniper, who has an MS in conservation and who has worked for sustainability orgs and environmental orgs. And nice try on shifting the topic of conversation, which IS NOT ecology but climate change/climate science.
Barnabas Kolumban you’re aware you need oil to make plastics, fertilizers and tires. Hydro-carbons are so important, they make their own field of chemistry (Organic).
@@douglashogg4848 technically you're right about that but the subject of the video is climate change. The problem for that with hydrocarbons comes when you burn them and release CO2.
@@andrew.r.lukasik Why hope? Look at history. When People are Armed, major atrocities are reduced. When a People become Disarmed, major atrocities are increased. Unpleasant things will always exist in this world. However an armed Society is a Polite Society.
@@andrew.r.lukasik Nor do I. That's why I'm thankful for some of my ancestors making their way to Ellis Island during the 20th century. Leaving Northern Europe where many were murdered. Giving their posterity the gift of America. I despise Communists and the like.
@@carlbennett2417 we have already sunk all the time we had in a untransferable system. Thus, pro-position is equally misguided since revolution does not happen in a day.
All I see in this is just a lot of symptom´s of the problem that most countries don´t have a real democratic system ( like the one they have in Switzerland) were elit, political and administration are forced to follow and protect the individuals choise´s, right´s and asset´s...instead of be a corrupt superior cancer on them. Only from there we can all start work together on a future.
@@CriticalMink well..what I have heard EU-parlament already in it´s statutes is prepared for to very fast change into a real democratic constitution, and with individuals and municipalities as base...all europé in just a week or two can have a real democratic system...
Lol China is capitalist. It's almost an argument about "will capitalism bring about the ecopocalypse or will something else?" I think it's really important to have a solution available. These guys have definitely made some "defending capitalism 101" mistakes: e.g presenting a stalinist/capitalist binary and also at times presenting capitalism as the only option. The means of production and the technological innovations are there, the question is who get's to make a decision about them and I think that people who have a direct stake in not fucking it up would be the best ones as opposed to people who do have a stake in fucking it up - so to speak.
Look this is a ridiculous motion to even debate, its a totally false dilemma. It could easily be climate change vs any system of wealth creation. At the end of the day even if mankind returned to the stone age with 7 billion souls we actually require a carbon negative civilisation or more accurately a civilisation that can control the composition of gas in the atmosphere. You are not going to get that through top down economic planning, we require innovation to create abundance. While the influence of corporations is becoming intolerable in some aspects that is something we can solve to some degree in legislation in theory, planned economies on the other hand historically have always failed and will not provide the scale needed for the solutions that will inevitably be found.
@@holdenrobbins852 Well, I have no friends, and I despise my living relatives, so you should be safe appointing me. I would have one heck of a party for myself thou.
Finland Capitalist? Of course different, culture made it different, there still inequality of economic and indigenous people from nordic and Finland etc Sami people.. how you incorporate with that sir? Its not a joker card or one solely card model to look for but to cooperate with the best solution for nation and its not solely economy value as wealth, but value of environment and 'development'
Stop doing anything that delays the presentation of simple facts. Never digress. Keep the phrases or sentences simple for all to understand... In this case verbal noise can be an enemy... Don't hate or compartmentalize when presenting on man-made climate change.. Simple and consistent is best with facts.
I will give £100 of my money to the first person who can cite a single bad aspect of a warmer world as per the IPCC's climate numbers, and a single place, a single local authority, that has traffic lights, which will have to spend more than the traffic light budget on sorting out, overcoming, that problem. I exclude Venice and permafrost melting. But if you have permafrost it getting warmer is surely good and Venice only passes because they are stupid with the sea defense plan and have very few traffic lights.
Gorwell Al Gore is my shepherd, I shall not think. He maketh me lie down in Greenzi pastures: He leadeth me beside his still-freezing waters. He selleth my soul for CO2: He leadeth me in his path of his self-righteousness for his own sake. And yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of reason, I will fear all logic: for thou art with me and thinking for me; Thy Gore’s family oil fortune and thy 10,000 square Gorey foot mansion, they comfort me. Thou preparest a movie in the presence of contradictory evidence: Thou anointest mine head with nonsense; my mindless conformity runneth over. Surely blind faith and hysteria shall follow me all the days of the rest of my life: and I will dwell in the house of ALGORE forever. CO2=Y2Kx1984+Gorwellx666 -Paul Merrifield 1990
How so? Nuclear is 100% feasible as the base form of energy and supplimented by renewables. You go carbon neutral through then taking in equal or more carbon than is released. The only reason people say this is because you are conditioned to, not based on evidence.
I will give £100 of my money to the first person who can cite a single bad aspect of a warmer world as per the IPCC's climate numbers, and a single place, a single local authority, that has traffic lights, which will have to spend more than the traffic light budget on sorting out, overcoming, that problem. I exclude Venice and permafrost melting. But if you have permafrost it getting warmer is surely good and Venice only passes because they are stupid with the sea defense plan and have very few traffic lights. Good luck.
@@Nauct I know I am asking you to do some thinking and that is probably too much for most but try to read the thing. Specify the bad thing, yes you have done that, and the location. And then the time frame and how much it is going to cost and how much of a bad thing is going to happen. That sort of detail. With numbers.
The problem of the debate is that Farhana, George and also Tony are all socialists to a different extent who see capitalism as inherently evil and all four agree that capitalism is the cause of climate change. To have a fruitful debate you should have somebody on who really makes a point for capitalism and its tremendous success in reducing poverty and rising living standards and advocates the great elephant in the room namely emission trading. In the EU we have emission trading in industry for 15 year and it was greatly successful. We have to use capitalism in that way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
@23:04.. lady.. you just have too much free time. future of your kids? just take care of them, make sure they have a good education, teach them the value of hard work. make good decisions. they'll be fine. if you believe that the world is gonna end in their generation and their children's children generation, you live a sad existence.
On this topic the panel could have someone like Richard Lindzen from MIT or Alex Epstein. Thank you again for the prompt reply. Both extensively consider the science, political and economic effects. Imo modular LFTR and battery advancements will take care of the co2 problem on its own.
![[Part 5/5] Debate Q&A: What makes Britain so great?](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EE1fQH70eGI/mqdefault.jpg)
It's a pleasure to hear George speak of anything. Educated, empathic and passionate. He's right. The system is rotten to the core. It's a Psychopathic power that doesn't care. We should have scrapped Fossil fuels 30 years ago. But the power in place, doesn't want to be dethroned....and it has pushed ever harder to protecting itself. This isn't about fixing a broken cog of corruption, it's about removing the entire corrupt machine with all of it's cogs.
Years ago I lived in a place in England, high unemployment is still a problem, where I was living the leader of the council took a whole valley, turned it into a landfill and stuck a golf course on top, 'tip to tee' was the fanciful name of the project. My view then and now is that they could have sent that rubbish to an incinerator and instead of the golf course they could have built a willow tree farm to make heating pellets, that fertilized by sewage sludge(they do this sort of stuff in Scandinavia) ultimately with this they could have heated schools and council buildings and created more employment within the borough, ultimately saving money. Maybe I'm just a madman but it seemed to me to make more sense than the mess of landfill and adding the eigth or ninth golf course to a place that already had too many golf courses.
9:51 don't know about the economy, but he has a very good idea about geography - asia, india and africa
“Their is no ethical consumption under capitalism” - Karl Marx
"A feminist, poet, thinker, strategist"
Waka waka.
“The 98% claim (from 2009) was based on a single survey by a University of Illinois professor and a graduate student. They sent a 2-minute online survey to 10,257 earth scientists. They got 3,146 responses to only these two questions…”
The first question asked, “When compared with pre-1800 levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” The second asked, “Do you think that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
Ninety percent of the respondents said that the mean temp had risen, while 82 percent said that human activity was a significant factor. However, the term “significant” was never defined. Furthermore, according to the Heartland Institute, most skeptic scientists would agree with the statistic if the term was defined.
The video explains that when formulating the 97 percent statistic, researchers used only the responses from “climate scientists.” However, only 5 percent of the respondents - 79 people - were climate scientists.
So, out of 10,257 academics that the professor and graduate student identified as worthy survey participants, only 79 were in agreement with their final finding. When calculated, those 79 scientists - now accepted as 97 percent - make up a meager 0.77 percent of academics. And, since only 97 percent of the 79 answered positively (which would be 76.63 people - so we will round to 77), the percentage shrinks from 0.77 percent to 0.75 percent.
www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/do-97-scientists-really-believe-global-warming
And don't forget the first half of the 19th century was in the little ice age. The point of measure used by environmentalists, the year 1850, starts at what was a cool period. This exaggerates the increase of temperature. The environmentalists' goal is to return the Earth to the temperature of 1850. We can and have reduced CO2 emissions, and further reductions may be achieved, but it seems unlikely we'll get to the temperatures of 1850 without the aid of another ice age. Seeing this is unlikely, it appears then that the demand for this to be the benchmark is based on the goal an unending war against industry, capitalism, meat consumption, prosperity, and even people - many of these environmentalists are also anti-natalists. Moreover, environmentalism is being used to further the agenda of mass immigration and social justice, which is being repackaged as "climate justice".
The whole view of consensus is not based of just this one study. You know that right? People aren't just saying, and basing, all of their views on this one study. It's quite similar how to climate scientists base their view on a cumulative of things. There is not one key to this situation. But, if you really wanted did dispute a consensus, you could call up official scientific communities around the world and ask them their standpoint on the issue.
>according to the Heartland Institute
So now one for you, because no one here is basing their opinion of consensus off one study. You realize that the Heartland Institute has clear ties to the very people that have fiancial interests in man made climate change not being a thing, right? I mean, you've asked about a study, and said a lot about it. But in that same mannar, you Hearland Institute isn't exactly the same as world wide scientific organizations. So while I can tell you to call up respected scientific organizations around the world, are you sure you can convince me that Heartland Institute isn't a propaganda tool financed by people that are paid by private oil industries.
"Bloomington-based Charlemagne Institute, a nonprofit conservative organization dedicated to "defending and advancing Western civilization.""
This is your source? How aout going to the source material? Try www.ncbi.com instead. Use you head and don't be a sheep.
Copypasta, misinformation, next.
Sixteen thousand views for what should be the most pressing issue for the entire humanity… looks like the world is absolutely doomed. But look at the bright side - Universe is under no obligation to care about whether biological life exists or not. I guess here’s our answer to “where is everybody?”
The world is not ending. This has been my area of study for a decade and everyone should just settle down.
Define what you mean by the world. Infinite economic growth on a planet which isn't growing?
A Major Sticking Point with Progress and Aspiration is those who are Promoting the Impossible of Everyone Must Agree on Everything. This can then becomes a Clever Stall Tactic.
The crucial factor for me in this debate is George's claim that capitalism is "innately unreformable" and "generates its own momentum". If true, I'm with him all the way. Otherwise, I am inclined to believe in the opposing side that we could, at least in theory, have private ownership of trade and industry conducted in a benevolent, highly regulated way.
Regulations come at an expense to the business that eats away its profits. The purpose of a business is to extract profits while delivering goods & services. Naturally, any capitalist corporation is trying to maximizing its profits even at the expense of any environmental concerns. Asking a private enterprise to self-regulate is like asking a heroin addict to stop shooting drugs... Good luck.
Even if you find a business that is willing to self-regulate, any cost of that regulation will be passed to the customers that may not welcome the added cost.
Many great ideas for change and good hearted people within the capitalist system have come up against the "fiduciary duty" to maximise profits for the shareholders. Bam. That's at the core, and it's not going to change.
@@carlbennett2417 I completely agree - I’ve changed my view since I posted that comment!
@@edredwhittingham4417 that's an interesting response in itself. I used to think activists banging on about overthrowing capitalism were silly Marxists in disguise, who didn't understand adaptive change is the realistic, pragmatic option. I was wrong.
I was an overly optimistic about a system which is driving us headlong into a collapse scenario, while accelerating all the way! The system has checkmated itself, and either planned or unplanned will be replaced with something else.
You need to convince the banks and investment firms to put their money where their mouth is and stop building holiday complexes in places that YOU say should be underwater in 10 years.
That is, IF, you want us to take you seriously.
You can't even convince the rich to drop their behaviour.
Many banks and big investment groups have moved away from coal based investments already. It's already starting to progress but it's very slow...probably too slow.
I think capitalism is the wrong word. I think they mean growth, or at least "growth capitalism" aka, the assumption that the more GDP a country rakes in, the better for its people. Distribution of GDP is rarely the outcome of growth. Most governments pocket that growth, spend it on controversial policies or use it to subsidise polluters they're in bed with and it's something that both capitalist and communist governments are guilty of. They're as bad as each other. Like Lakota tribesman Russel Means said, 'Marxism is just as alien a concept to indigenous culture as capitalism'. When you talk about capitalism being the issue, people automatically assume you're for communism. Capitalism just means making money which can be done without destruction and exploitation. The real issue is growth. The first government to move away from the concept is New Zealand and only in the last six months but apparently they're already seeing the results. Hopefully we all follow suit but first we're going to have to unlearn everything we were taught in school. Juniper allured to it when he mentioned changing the measure of GDP but he didn't mention to what. I suggest not changing it but replacing it with a unit of measurement that takes into account diversity and abundance of crops for human consumption and access to green spaces, a good education, healthy food, clean drinking water and health services and from a less anthropocentric point of view, diversity and abundance of wild flora and fauna. Those are the most important things I can think of for now.
How can we save the planet when we can't even help each other.
Earthwarrior The Earth doesnt need saving . It isnt a fragile ball of glass
@@christiansoldier77 I know. If the Earth can survive 6 mass extinctions it can survive us.
@@NeekSquad "Hey its okay that we begin another mass extinction since we won't make the entire Earth uninhabitable for all life."
Earthwarrior humans survived those 6 mass extinctions too...maybe things are not so grim.
David W we were still here, just not human yet. If you believe in human evolution, you have to believe we’ve also survived everything that’s been thrown at life on earth. Also modern humans have gone through about a half dozen population bottlenecks caused by environmental factors in the last 100,000 years.
Freedom seems to be a Big Sticking Point. Some People, Corporations, Public Services will Not See Beyond Their Own Freedoms.
There is a need to redefine freedom, many people are slaves to other people, corporations and public services whether the Amazon burns or not.
@@wobblybobengland Train, Please Don't Burn the Forrests.
Yes Freedom is Tricky and We All Seek it.
What happened to parts 1-4
sally hare they’re listed in the videos section of the channel
I don't accept the premise.
Climate change requires action, not ideology.
Turn up your levels. Can’t hear
Our existence is predicated on a certain balance. While we may have the power to disturb the balance we must understand we do not possess the power to regain balance. This is where humanity has gone rogue and misused its power to create an imbalance rather than achieving higher levels of balance itself by bringing our desires under control through meditation.
Human is the only species that has such a power to imagine. All other species are always stuck in the cycle of their limited possibilities. We have something boundless i.e. imagination and we need to use it to attain higher consciousness rather than again going back to the animal state of boundedness where we are indulging some sensory pleasures. Human life is a privilege to attain higher consciousness.
It is Very Important to Consider China and India because We Must have a Good Understanding of How to Manage a Very Large Population. Especially when they are Told by Their Own Governments that they ALL can be Winners.
"NO!"
Where's the full debate?
Full debate will be uploaded this weekend!
@@Intelligence-Squared Thanks.
Seems to me that everyone in this panel agrees that the changes that need to happen can not happen with the current forms of capitalism that exists in the world today.
I think religion is more dangerous than capitalism in itself, can't really convince a population to affect change if they think their imaginary friend is going to save them in the end.
Yamin is a lawyer for an extremist environmental group and glued herself to an oil company's offices (so much for her legal acumen); no science background. Monbiot studied zoology in uni; no other science background. Turner is a former finance guy and apparatchik; no science background. Juniper has a BS in zoology and psych, MS in conservation, and has worked for various sustainability orgs and environmental orgs. *Juniper is the sole debater has any expertise in anything scientific and climate science specifically.*
@@CriticalMink _how is it that only Juniper's degree counts as a background in science?_ Please read what I wrote again. Monbiot has a background in science but not in climate science and does not work in that field. In stark contrast, Juniper has a background in science and the environment and works in that field. Since he's talking outside his area of expertise (education+work experience, as I've formulated it), Monbiot's views on the environment are just as valuable as a footballer's views on volleyball.
What about engaging with the arguments?
Don't need to be a scientist to understand system breakdown. Besides, ecology (not zoology) is a systems science.
@@vertincomercial1571 _What about engaging with the arguments?_ How about they demonstrate they even understand the science before debating it?
@@carlbennett2417 _Don't need to be a scientist to understand system breakdown._ But you do most certainly need to have a scientific education and/or considerable work experience in a scientific field in order to debate a scientific topic.
_Besides, ecology (not zoology) is a systems science._ By your criterion, you've eliminated Monbiot then. That leaves only Juniper, who has an MS in conservation and who has worked for sustainability orgs and environmental orgs.
And nice try on shifting the topic of conversation, which IS NOT ecology but climate change/climate science.
Hydro-carbons are so vital to the modern economy, I don’t see any replacement. Renewables will help but will never replace.
Good thing you are not in charge then
If you're right, we're screwed then!
Barnabas Kolumban you’re aware you need oil to make plastics, fertilizers and tires. Hydro-carbons are so important, they make their own field of chemistry (Organic).
@@douglashogg4848 technically you're right about that but the subject of the video is climate change. The problem for that with hydrocarbons comes when you burn them and release CO2.
If what Your Saying is True.
Then How much Hydro Carbons should We Set Aside for Future Generations so They Survive?.
So many bootlickers in the comments.
Can you speak louder?
This is an example of how a lie can cause a lot of grief.
Self-congratulatory, angry and/or naive minds vs. serious, responsible people.
People Without Guns vs. People With Guns...
@@laymantalks8113 I hope it's not those who see utility in everyone dying.
@@andrew.r.lukasik Why hope? Look at history. When People are Armed, major atrocities are reduced. When a People become Disarmed, major atrocities are increased. Unpleasant things will always exist in this world. However an armed Society is a Polite Society.
@@laymantalks8113 That well may be true. I just don't trust communists with guns
@@andrew.r.lukasik Nor do I. That's why I'm thankful for some of my ancestors making their way to Ellis Island during the 20th century. Leaving Northern Europe where many were murdered. Giving their posterity the gift of America. I despise Communists and the like.
two world wars later, standing at the brim of extinction: "Yes, we can transform capitalism into being sustainable" lmao!
Indeed. They need to pray harder to transform the untransformable.
@@carlbennett2417 lol! maybe they should pray for a cosy place in heaven instead.
@@carlbennett2417 we have already sunk all the time we had in a untransferable system. Thus, pro-position is equally misguided since revolution does not happen in a day.
All I see in this is just a lot of symptom´s of the problem that most countries don´t have a real democratic system ( like the one they have in Switzerland) were elit, political and administration are forced to follow and protect the individuals choise´s, right´s and asset´s...instead of be a corrupt superior cancer on them. Only from there we can all start work together on a future.
@@CriticalMink well..what I have heard EU-parlament already in it´s statutes is prepared for to very fast change into a real democratic constitution, and with individuals and municipalities as base...all europé in just a week or two can have a real democratic system...
The answer is keynesianism and zero carbon targets met worldwide.
What has happened to this program ? “ Intelligence” my ar@e.
Not so much Intelligence Squared as "The Cube Root of Intelligence "
If you have a link please direct us to a better balanced and more informative debate on environmental issues
what's the problem?
Lol China is capitalist.
It's almost an argument about "will capitalism bring about the ecopocalypse or will something else?" I think it's really important to have a solution available. These guys have definitely made some "defending capitalism 101" mistakes: e.g presenting a stalinist/capitalist binary and also at times presenting capitalism as the only option.
The means of production and the technological innovations are there, the question is who get's to make a decision about them and I think that people who have a direct stake in not fucking it up would be the best ones as opposed to people who do have a stake in fucking it up - so to speak.
Look this is a ridiculous motion to even debate, its a totally false dilemma. It could easily be climate change vs any system of wealth creation. At the end of the day even if mankind returned to the stone age with 7 billion souls we actually require a carbon negative civilisation or more accurately a civilisation that can control the composition of gas in the atmosphere. You are not going to get that through top down economic planning, we require innovation to create abundance. While the influence of corporations is becoming intolerable in some aspects that is something we can solve to some degree in legislation in theory, planned economies on the other hand historically have always failed and will not provide the scale needed for the solutions that will inevitably be found.
The Earth is getting greener. OH THE HORROR!!!
Appoint me benevolent dictator of the world and I could solve this problem for you !
Right after I redistribute everyone's wealth and the means of production to my friends and family.
@@holdenrobbins852 Well, I have no friends, and I despise my living relatives, so you should be safe appointing me.
I would have one heck of a party for myself thou.
Finland Capitalist? Of course different, culture made it different, there still inequality of economic and indigenous people from nordic and Finland etc Sami people.. how you incorporate with that sir? Its not a joker card or one solely card model to look for but to cooperate with the best solution for nation and its not solely economy value as wealth, but value of environment and 'development'
'We don't want Communism.' is code for I'm doing very well thank you, just keep everything the same.
Stop doing anything that delays the presentation of simple facts. Never digress. Keep the phrases or sentences simple for all to understand...
In this case verbal noise can be an enemy... Don't hate or compartmentalize when presenting on man-made climate change.. Simple and consistent is best with facts.
I will give £100 of my money to the first person who can cite a single bad aspect of a warmer world as per the IPCC's climate numbers, and a single place, a single local authority, that has traffic lights, which will have to spend more than the traffic light budget on sorting out, overcoming, that problem.
I exclude Venice and permafrost melting. But if you have permafrost it getting warmer is surely good and Venice only passes because they are stupid with the sea defense plan and have very few traffic lights.
The Best outcome would be a alien civilisation come to earth and decide for us how to protect the planet. Give us no choice.
Gorwell
Al Gore is my shepherd, I shall not think.
He maketh me lie down in Greenzi pastures:
He leadeth me beside his still-freezing waters.
He selleth my soul for CO2:
He leadeth me in his path of his self-righteousness for his own sake.
And yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of reason,
I will fear all logic: for thou art with me and thinking for me;
Thy Gore’s family oil fortune and thy 10,000 square Gorey foot mansion, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a movie in the presence of contradictory evidence:
Thou anointest mine head with nonsense; my mindless conformity runneth over.
Surely blind faith and hysteria shall follow me all the days of the rest of my life:
and I will dwell in the house of ALGORE forever.
CO2=Y2Kx1984+Gorwellx666
-Paul Merrifield 1990
Zero carbon economy is lunacy.
How so?
Nuclear is 100% feasible as the base form of energy and supplimented by renewables.
You go carbon neutral through then taking in equal or more carbon than is released.
The only reason people say this is because you are conditioned to, not based on evidence.
So killing everyone is the way to go? Is that what you're saying?
yeah, say goodbye to alot of plants without the additional CO2 in the air. Carbon is the fundamental building block of life.
@@nathanielmathews2617 Everything you listed is derived from Oil, Gas and Coal.
@@Nauct Do you even understand what you are saying? I bet you have Zero understanding of Ozone.
I will give £100 of my money to the first person who can cite a single bad aspect of a warmer world as per the IPCC's climate numbers, and a single place, a single local authority, that has traffic lights, which will have to spend more than the traffic light budget on sorting out, overcoming, that problem.
I exclude Venice and permafrost melting. But if you have permafrost it getting warmer is surely good and Venice only passes because they are stupid with the sea defense plan and have very few traffic lights.
Good luck.
Higher sea levels
@@Nauct I know I am asking you to do some thinking and that is probably too much for most but try to read the thing. Specify the bad thing, yes you have done that, and the location. And then the time frame and how much it is going to cost and how much of a bad thing is going to happen. That sort of detail. With numbers.
Crop yield reductions. Hurting poor people first, then coming for you and your worthless £100.
يا شلج أتنفس للغد
يا ذوبان ماذا بعد
موسيقى العلم 2020 الحمد الفذ
شكرا
The problem of the debate is that Farhana, George and also Tony are all socialists to a different extent who see capitalism as inherently evil and all four agree that capitalism is the cause of climate change. To have a fruitful debate you should have somebody on who really makes a point for capitalism and its tremendous success in reducing poverty and rising living standards and advocates the great elephant in the room namely emission trading. In the EU we have emission trading in industry for 15 year and it was greatly successful. We have to use capitalism in that way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
@23:04.. lady.. you just have too much free time. future of your kids? just take care of them, make sure they have a good education, teach them the value of hard work. make good decisions. they'll be fine. if you believe that the world is gonna end in their generation and their children's children generation, you live a sad existence.
So she should pretend climate change doesn't exist and tell her kids to do the same! Hard to sustain that level of gnorance in kids.
Man, you are a misogynist
gross
Oh the old chestnut at the end. Tax the land you live on. Ie steal your property. Never never never.
Yawn
These people are clowns. There is no climate crisis.
Koch has stopped your payments years ago. Get with the program
Where is the complete debate?
It's all on our youtube channel, start with George Monbiot at 1/5
@@Intelligence-Squared thank you!!
It had a different title, that is why I missed it.
On this topic the panel could have someone like Richard Lindzen from MIT or Alex Epstein. Thank you again for the prompt reply. Both extensively consider the science, political and economic effects.
Imo modular LFTR and battery advancements will take care of the co2 problem on its own.
@@edpiv2233 They clearly don't want any science or scientists that dissent from the hysterical narrative. Shameful event.