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
►► Subscribe & join the conversation: bit.ly/38fuJjZ
►► Subscribe to Course Correction: megaphone.link/QF2056074382
►► Listen to The Negotiators: dohadebates.com/the-negotiators/
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.
►► Follow us on Facebook: / dohadebates
►► Follow us on Twitter: / dohadebates
►► Follow us on Instagram: / dohadebates

[@1stsampan]

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.

[@kevinodom2918]

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

[@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.

[@RichardRoy2]

Private industry is why we're not moving fast. It's why we're crawling, because they created the issue in the first place.

[@RichardRoy2]

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

[@tchai91]

Please elaborate on his ideas that you deem to not be serious?

[@penglim224]

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.

[@johnanderson1421]

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.

[@Raul19818]

fewer deaths seem to you irrelevant? that is the whole point, what cares if there is climate change if nobody suffers from it?

[@tchai91]

Why are the number of deaths due to climate change irrelevant? Isn’t that exactly what campaigners point at as being their primary concern, when there’s zero proof that deaths are increasing? And Bjorn’s preferred methods actually decrease deaths from clinate change even more, as does his policy on treating malaria, hunger, HIV/AIDS, the numbers of dying people from which absolutely dwarf the climate change deaths. Yes they’re deemed to not count somehow. Why?

[@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 .

[@wda65]

That is BS! You need to read up on the Jevons paradox and the rebound effect! Making technology better and MORE efficient will only lead to MORE CONSUMPTION and GDP GROWTH!!! That is the culprit!!

[@dodiewallace41]

If we're serious about reducing dependence on hydrocarbons for energy, we better get cracking building a buttload of nuclear power plants. It's known, currently available technology. NP requires a fraction of the resources of the alternatives and provides clean, reliable power for many decades. It's the gold standard of clean energy.

[@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.

[@Raul19818]

denounce it then

[@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.

[@roshnihidangmayum7771]

Thank you doha debate for bringing out more2 sensitive issues

[@CharlesWT-TX]

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

[@adrienpartier7207]

Apart from highlighting that people in poor countries want to live like people in rich countries, which is quite understandable (although impossible in terms of resources consumption and modes of production) or preaching the need for more innovation, which is obvious (but would require heavy public investments and subsidies, as in all crises humanity has ever gone through, something market fundamentalists will never comprehend), his intervention was irrelevant through and through. He denies that the consumer society is fundamentally unsustainable and incompatible with a livable planet for everyone, he fails to grasp the nature of globalized financial capitalism and the exploitation of labor, the destruction of the environment, the rise of poverty, the emergence of new diseases and the dangerous economic instabilities that it creates, and he refuses to acknowledge the role that business leaders, corporate propagandists, politicians and the cultural industry played in promoting, designing and perpetuating that world economic order.

[@jrshield7793]

An eye of sanity ? why not an ear ?

[@bingbangboom1239]

You are wrong. He is fully aware of those issues and has researched it in depth. However, when you are locked in a room full of Marxist activists and ideologs you have to keep things simple to accomodate for the audiences expected IQ

[@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.

[@JG-qt3pn]

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

[@robertkb64]

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.

[@kevinoneill41]

Well, I do agree with your assumptions as proven through past scientific think tanks. I believe I'll join you in watching the debate.

[@kevinoneill41]

And this only a year ago.😂😂😂

[@RichardRoy2]

No one can predict the future of such events. But, I must say that there have been periods in history where people have come together and taken action. Will it happen? I don't know. There are things happening right now that i was not expecting. It gives me hope. If you allow institutions simply go on as they do, I wouldn't expect much change. But there is a rising up from the grass roots. If it holds, it can change everything. Sometimes it only takes one leader to drive a society, or a country. I don't expect it from the political level. I'm not necessarily in agreement on India and coal. The scaling up of transitions to renewables could alter the industrial foundations on a profound scale. There are already many forms of storage in existence, but most of the resistance comes from the current power structures. Once a shift occurs, it could take place rapidly. It's usually slow at the start. It's the nature of the S curve of disruptive change. Chances are it would more likely be oil that gets transferred to India as oil markets start to shrink. Going to have to wait see on this. I must warn you though that I tend to be a bit more biased on the optimistic side. But I have been looking into this for a bit, and I really don't see a point of the alternative. That doesn't mean I'm right. It's the future, after all.

[@randomeverything2131]

#DearWorld, Can we look at all pros and cons of capitalism then rework on that have lead to the damages we are facing today? Because from right now away, we can't continue to take decisions and act just like how it has happened in the past few decades. We are in a different world with lots of different problems and people are realizing that all went wrong.

[@Raul19818]

first you have to know what capitalism is

[@CharlesWT-TX]

The Global South should worry about the new colonialist, China.

[@froginhotwater4806]

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.

[@VHelander]

Horrible debate. Bad format and too many people talking.

[@iamhudsdent2759]

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.

[@wda65]

What have we done in the past 500 years? INNOVATION! And what for INNOVATION is Bjorn talking about actually that would solve the ECOCRISIS?? Green energy perhaps, but that will not solve anything because that will only lead to more extraction of resources, production and consumption!! 90 billion ton material use in 2015 (at 3,5% growth) it will be 182 billion ton in 2036 and it will be 365 billion ton in 2057!!!

[@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.

[@paulaannstewartTHANKFUL2024]

Get the SHELL OUT!

[@andersnilsson5833]

Lomborg is not a scientist, he is a lobbyist

[@beyondaboundary6034]

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.

[@thegreataynrand7210]

You are full of it.

[@beyondaboundary6034]

@@thegreataynrand7210 Ayn Rand was full of it and so are her followers!

[@tchai91]

Good effort, but your argument doesn’t really work. Slavery benefitted a very small number of rich plantation owners and African leaders, but the vast majority of ‘ordinary’ people did not benefit in the slightest from it, and obviously millions of slaves died (especially in the Arab slave trade, that to this day still exists). You could argue that the fossil fuels industry benefits the very rich, but access to cheap energy also benefits everybody else, ESPECIALLY poor people, when they are allowed access to it, which net zero policies currently are trying to prevent. The current ridiculous net zero madness will continue to keep poor people poor for longer. Maybe that’s what you actually want?

[@rmac3217]

Don't need to go back to 1860,.child slaves are mining lithium overtime right now to make batteries, it's extremely dangerous to mine.

[@rmac3217]

Why 1860? Children are mining lithium overtime right now to make batteries, it's extremely dangerous to mine.

[@randomeverything2131]

#DearWorld, Dear Bjorn, the crisis we are facing is not only the energy, although, everything runs on energy. Above energy, there is resources extraction, unlimited production by factories and industries, what about the tremendous waste from continuous consumption and hoarding, what about loss of animals and biodiversity, what about ocean acidification. What about water pollution? They don't depend on energy. How do we solve all this unlimited crisis by only switching to renewable energy?

[@stargazerh112]

This lady from the NYT’s is religious

[@rufio171]

BJORN FTW!

[@craigcernek6776]

Irrational hysterical Neo Marxists vs Bjorn Lomborg

[@jiminycricket9877]

Painful drivel. Thank god for Lomborg.

[@rodneypennington1086]

I think I've seen all the info about climate and what we aren't doing to resolve it. After thinking about it, I can only conclude that most of the initiatives (net zero!) won't save our kids or future generations. Certainly we need to do a lot more and actually change our consumer behaviour and give up some things. It becomes what are we prepared to give up or vastly reduce as a world. I'll list a few things: Cruise ships, cars with a greater capacity than 1.5 litres, eating animal flesh, tankers and container ships, armies and wars, concrete, trucking, RV's, motor racing, massive yachts, jet skis, cotton, sugar, airliners, freeways, cities, space travel, rockets, satellites, forest clearing. Nuclear fusion is a possibility but I'd like to suggest that we already have a fantastic nuclear fusion reactor at just the right distance for safety. Just spend the money on solar applications.

[@Stonecoldfrank]

How about giving up food and clean water while you're at it? You are the problem

[@nicolagianaroli2024]

we have embraced globalist ideology which preaches that goods can be assembled "just on time" by gathering the parts which are produced in far away countries. I mean how stupid is that? Or we have seen automotive industry to come out with car model bigger and bigger throughout the years. we are induced to believe that you can eat seasonal fruit every moment of teh year, the only thing is that it might come from the other end of the world but that is apparently not an issue Etc.etc. How believable is that the very same elite who have imposed such idiotic models until yesterday all of the sudden wake up and start preaching the absurde idea of the net zero agenda? This is pure evil

[@dodiewallace41]

Dilute intermittents like wind and solar are far too resource intensive and chaotic to be capable of doing the heavy lifting of meeting our energy needs. Dense and dispatchable > dilute and intermittent.

[@Raul19818]

I have another list: reduce yourself, thanks. You can take over some country an create a socialist society, it could work.

[@Dreadnought16]

Naomi Kline is like Joseph Goebbels….repeat a lie enough and it will become the truth.

[@kermitfrog593]

Is this a comedy this is terrible

[@tazacebedo253]

they should invite real climate scientist. the real issue is whether its man made or natural

[@kyletopfer7818]

1:06:00 did that woman seriously just suggest building new nuclear in Pakistan in a climate crisis where we are going over 1.5C next year? And also that nuclear is lower emissions than renewables across its lifecycle? Insane.

[@Nash15118]

Nuclear plants are considered the best option currently when it comes to creating renewable energy nothing else is scalable. If you hookup your hospitals to solar and there is less sunlight the next day you are doomed

[@maxxwellbeing9449]

@@Nash15118 Correct!

[@loveandmercy9664]

You have to respect Bjorn's calmness and never losing his cool despite being hammered.

[@kevinodom2918]

This woman is off her rocker..

[@MilagroBay]

He does not get it. So many other males in the World that understand why using the current existing methodologies will not give us the results we need. We have been kicking this can down the road for more than 20 years. So tired of this. Pitch Bring someone on that has existing technologies that will reverse many aspects of global warming. I have worked and served on to0 many advisory boards to put up with his old mentality. We have been ignoring all the signs for years.

[@sdmann670]

Naomi obviously doesn't spend much time in Canada where regulation is at its highest.

[@aidanengel875]

????

[@ekkiazure]

I can not fathom how Bjørn can sit there and seriously claim that more people dying from cold than from heat stroke is in any way an argument against climate change preoccupations. Certainly he can not be oblivious about all the other ways by which the warming of the planet leads to loss of human life, such as extreme weather events, food insecurity, viral pandemics, mosquito-born diseases, water shortages, wild fires and so on and so forth smh talk about simplism

[@io3213]

Actually he specifically addressed your point at the beginning. All climate-related deaths combined have dropped 50-fold in the last 100 years or so, coinciding with innovation largely related to fossil fuels.

[@scottekoontz]

@@io3213 And since we can warm and cool using better energy sources, Bjorn is pretending that any source will do. Rubbish.

[@io3213]

@@scottekoontz No he's pointing out using anything other than reliable sources would make people 50x as likely to die from climate than they are today thanks to fossil fuels. And the undisputed fact that cold kills more than heat should make you at least question some of the policies pushed by climate alarmist.

[@jeff__w]

54:13 Naomi Klein: “I don’t have consensus with someone [Bjorn Lomborg] whose only role in this debate for almost 20 years has been to run out the clock. It’s ethically reprehensible.”

[@brewsdalton6243]

BL says we should get people out of poverty. But climate change causes extreme weather events resulting climate refugees or people needing to rebuild homes and towns . This results in the poor getting poorer and dependent on charity . We have had a lot of innovation in green energy but fossil fuel companies obstruct the implementation of green energy . Even if we did implement green energy today , the planet is still on an irreversible path to extremes of climate for decades.