(3 of 14) MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: OLIVER TICKELL

The goal of IQ2 US is to raise the level of public discourse on our most challenging issues. To provide a new forum for intelligent discussion, grounded in facts and informed by reasoned analysis. To transcend the toxically emotional and the reflexively ideological. To encourage recognition that the opposing side has intellectually respectable views. To engage the live audience as active participants who will ask questions and decide which speakers have carried the day by voting on the motions both before and after the debate

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Carbon
• Emissions
• Donvan
• Lomborg
• Stott
• Tickell. Huber
• Werbach
• Lovins
• IQ2
• IQ
• Intelligence Squared
• Intelligence Squared US
• Debate
• IQ2US

[flyoverjoe]

This summer, Phoenix, Arizona, saw high temperatures jump from 75F to 110F. With only two months to prepare for the catostrophic warming, there was widespread disease, famine, food shortages, and nasty sunburn. The human race did not survive.

[doveisle]

Yes, we understand climate changes and there are feed backs but where is the argument that is pertinent to the topic?

[mjay22]

Islam is a universal religion and so there are White Muslims as well. Are you going to kill your fellow Whites in America for being Muslims just so that you can steal their fossil fuels?

[thunor66]

Of course its a real choice, a real dichotomy. We only have so much money, we should spend where it is most efficient.

[sefjaguar]

PS the only problem with his argument is his failure to distinguish between cap and trade methods.

All arguments advocating a reduction of C02 must highlight efficiency over capping of industry.

For example 40% of US C02 is caused by transport (i.e. cars), petroleum refinery and manufacture of goods which do not leave the country (EIA, 2007).

This means that US lifestyle is more linked with global warming than manufacturing, which is what most C02 reduction methods wrongly address.

[sefjaguar]

his point that we are spending the same amount on killing each other (weapons) than on abating global warming is a vary valid one.

If we move away from fossil fuels we can avert future costs caused by Peak oil, which despite what critics say, must happen eventually, even if the time scale in Limits to Growth (1972) was slightly too short

beasn, the fact that he has a stutter has nothing to do with his argument.

[Visfen]

Somebody needs to shoot scienists in the head that start talking about "possible feedbacks"

Look dude, you're a scientists, not a doomsday prediction maker.

You can not make vague statements about what might happened based on nothing. Like the permafrost and methan-problem.

[magega]

This guy doesn't even understand the world he lives in at the most basic level. Someone needs to politely ask him to leave and never return,

Who is he?

[pfredericrobert]

What an ass

[beasn]

Obviously Tickell is fooled by his own intelligence as the rules governing nature are too great for mankind to control. The presentation by Tickell is interspersed by "facts", which are not facts at all.

In New Zealand there was a minister of climate change, who claimed we could not change the weather but we can change the climate. This stuttering Tickell speech is a reflection of a seriously disturbing premise.