PART 1 - Michael Pawlyn debate with Bjorn Lomborg at the BCO 2009 conference

[00Eregos00]

Anybody notice the ghost sitting at the table at the start of the video?

[shaunak84]

Also in the transcript you mention hybrid cars. How much would it cost us to just plant 10 trees per car bought Michael? A lot less than a hybrid I figure. And without the depence on Chinese rare earth metals (fairly huge political cost). You use the same type of argument discussing developing countries. It would cost a lot less to simply provide these people education & technology, where as your solution restricts their growth so they have less to deal with the coming bottlenecks.

[shaunak84]

I think a lot of what you're missing is in your definition of "cost." Cost is not the time it will take to earn back the nominal amount you spent, it is the efficiency of your solution compared to what you could have otherwise done.

For example is it better to restrict carbon at a cost of $100bn/yr for 100 years (and accomplish what after 100 years and $10T) or put that money towards research for solar power, fusion, etc? Which would better lower carbon emissions? Which is more PLAUSIBLE?

[shaunak84]

@shaunak84 Also with regards to your bubble building, how would it handle environmental strains? (storms, earthquakes, etc). Don't know how you can posit green designs that don't even meet your own regulations. 

[shaunak84]

Also with regards to the "cost" of carbon, you say the benefits of nature aren't included, but then go on to promote closed loop solutions that do not tap those natural benefits (oceans, forests, etc); so would it not be a cost in your scenario as well?

[Chongalulu]

Although this was not a debate, I do appreciate hearing these lectures and how scientists are being innovative. The story of the linear waste system into a closed loop system of cardboard being used as horse bedding, etc.

[brianmmulligan]

It should take about 1 minute to explain the principle of biomimicry. I get it. I gave it 15 minutes. I didn't listen to any more. Did he answer the economic argument, that it will cost a huge amount to replace a substantial part of our oil and coal consumption? What figure did he come up with? Did he do any economic modelling to show how this expenditure might impact on the world economy? Did he even estimate the chances of getting political leaders to agree to spend this money?

[Audioholics]

Michael;

I really like your solutions you present here and appreciate you addressing Bjorn Lomborg's misrepresentations of statistics to form his conclusions. Its going to be a # of years b4 people start realizing we need sustainable structures that can produce their own energies and not feed off the grid. Heck this can start by having people give up their grassy energy consuming lawns for systems that don't consume as many resources and their byproducts can be reused instead of thrown out.

[jmchristian63]

It would be much more honest to call these postings a lecture or presentation. Please sir, if you post a "debate" that doesn't mean one side only... and then a mention in the comments about how you really wanted to post both sides but didn't have permission. Just call it something besides a debate. It's misleading. I listen to you for 25 minutes only to find out that Lomborgs rebuttals and defense of his side is nowhere to be found here.

[BiomimicryArch]

I appreciate your point but I am keen that people do engage with this as a debate. Thats why I confirmed in the comment below where people can find a transcript of the discussion part and the nearest equivalent of BLs presentation. Sorry that this is not as convenient as most debates but I believe there are some major errors in BLs analysis that need to be aired

[BiomimicryArch]

In response to the comments asking where the other side of the debate is: The event took the form of a presentation from Bjorn Lomborg followed by my talk and then a discussion / debate. BL refused permission for his presentation or the discussion to be posted on Youtube which is why you only see one side of the story here. His presentation was similar to his TED talk. A transcript of the discussion can be found by googling 'climate progress pawlyn'

[BiomimicryArch]

Following my responses below I can expand as follows: Stern believes the cost benefit figure should be $85/T & the ECI at Oxford Uni arrived at an even higher figure. Even with the conservative figure from Tol of $28/T we can see that there is a substantial cost benefit in carbon reduction technologies. BL tries to undermine this with a use of statistics that is highly selective and, I would argue, dangerously misleading. Whether it is willful deception or not I will leave to others to decide.

[BriansVideoHobby]

How is this a debate? First, where is Bjorn Lomborg, and second, Bjorn Lomborg never opposes smart low carbon solutions, he promotes them. He advocates intelligent and product use of available resources. This is a very lame.

[BiomimicryArch]

BL does oppose low carbon solutions. He says they cost $20/T to implement & only deliver $2/T of benefits. Both figures are deceptive. Many low C solutions have a negative cost. BL's $2 figure comes from Prof R. Tol who has confirmed that BL is using the wrong figure: "The $2 comes about when you ignore all the uncertainties, but if you start including the fact that things could go dramatically wrong then you would come up with a much higher number". Prof. Tol believes the right figure is $28/T.

[Visfen]

Are you then measuring social costs into monetary gain?

Because I really see no other way to make your argument work.

As far as the higher numbers goes, you don't calculate investment that way. You don't say "here is a highly unlikely scenario and now I'm going to spend money on it"

Bets in future markets are made relative to future returns. If there is half a chance I will double my money, no one will invest, but if I will tripple them, I would go ahead.

RIsk and benefit analysis. Econ 101

[shaunak84]

@BiomimicryArch Yea well how about the fact that most of these alternatives are a lot more expensive than the equally effective carbon offset of planting trees? So you can have your cake and eat it to, why buy a hybrid civic for a $10k premium? Just buy a civic, plant $1k worth of trees, and put $9k towards R&D, entertainment, saving starving children, etc. Learn basic economics before talking like a moron.

[greyhowl]

i cannot find the other side of this debate ,where is the other guy if you cannot be bothered to post

the whole thing i will assume you only want people to hear one side ,and i will take it with a large pinch of salt.

[marianstefan1]

Where can i find more about BCO ?