Should We Abolish Fossil Fuels to Stop Global Warming? A Soho Forum Debate

Authors Jeff Nesbit and Bjorn Lomborg on the threat of climate change and what should be done about it.
------------------
Subscribe to our KZbin channel: kzbin.info?sub_...
Like us on Facebook: / reason.magazine
Follow us on Twitter: / reason
Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.
----------------
To combat climate change, the world's nations must make it their highest priority to completely replace the burning of fossil fuels within the next 20 years.
If governments don't completely eliminate fossil fuels by 2040, society is doomed, says Jeff Nesbit, author of This is the Way the World Ends.
That kind of apocalyptic rhetoric "Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet," says Bjorn Lomborg, the author of False Alarm.
Are fossil fuels an imminent threat to human life, or are attempts to eliminate them more destructive? That was the subject of an Oxford-style online Soho Forum debate hosted on Sunday, October 18th, 2020.
Arguing in favor of the complete elimination of fossil fuels over 20 years was Nesbit, who's the executive director of Climate Nexus. He went up against Lomborg, who's the president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. The debate was moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein.
Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Ian Keyser. Intro by John Osterhoudt.
Music: "Under Cover" by Wayne Jones
Photos: Gina M Randazzo/ZUMA Press/Newscom; SEBASTIAN SILVA/EFE/Newscom; imageBROKER/Jim West/Newscom; Stefan Boness/Ipon/SIPA/Newscom

[@tonydecentblackman1327]

Why don't we hear more about the negative costs and consequences of climate change mitigation? This goes to show how much propaganda we are faced with.

[@thorddespace2773]

Jeff argued from in essence anecdotal data and his rebuttal time was a repeat of his first five minutes. To top it off, Germany and the cost of energy are splendid examples of how right Bjørn is.

[@aud9152]

What about nuclear though?

[@vegasvibes5643]

Bjorn really did a good job showing the disingenuous of Jeff's argument. Which is the standard milk toast pie in the sky version of the problem.

[@wbaumschlager]

Jeff thinks he's science based but in the end he's just part of a network of wishful thinkers.

[@Publius7619]

I like that they were actually talking.

[@m.hughes8605]

Bjorn Lomborg clearly presented far more cogent arguements in this debate. Thank you Reason for hosting this.

[@BobWidlefish]

Book guy: “I’m not a statistics person, I’m a writer.”

[@mrmelkor1]

Guy mentions his book a lot.

[@alexanderx33]

Woah, the market share of critical thinking was really one-sided on this. Jeff sounded like a politician using sensationalism, Bjorn sounded like an engineer looking at the bigger picture. And the undecided percentage shift showed it.

[@cebukid70]

Hey so Tesla, the technology leader in alternative energy, uses

[@Kunfucious577]

You know when, people moved from horses to cars, the government didn't come in and force everyone to change. Cars were economical superior and people switched on their own. It was efficient and it helped the worlds economy grow exponentially. This is obviously not the case here. Its extremely inefficient and the people are fighting it instead of supporting it.

[@dannydelacruz7303]

"Category 6 hurricanes don't exist and we have seen some already"

[@hackerj23]

Originally I was undecided, but Björn showed me just how costly and perhaps dangerous it is to pursue extreme climate solutions.

[@paulkim1011]

From green to blue yet another nonsensical slogan from a money hungry elitist

[@justifiably_stupid4998]

First speaker says that climate change is enevitible. In the next breath he says green energy is enevitible. So, problem solved?

[@woodchuck003]

I like how Jeff Nesbit disproves his own claim in the first 10 minutes. His first claim is that hurricanes are getting stronger and references category 6 hurricanes. Then he admits that the research actually states hurricanes may drop more water; they will achieve this by slowing down so they would actually be getting weaker, not stronger, but since they are slower they may do more damage due to being prolonged in the time span.

[@EMO_alpha]

Clean energy is the future. Thats why we should be fighting for nuclear lol

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

When I hear of my local scout group worrying whether it’s ethical to have a singalong around a camp fire I know this has gone too far...

[@JohnboyCollins]

Real debates are so good. Also, I can't believe it looks like the entire world is going to side with Jeff.