PART 3 - Michael Pawlyn debate with Bjorn Lomborg at the BCO 2009 conference

Michael Pawlyn, founder of architectural practice Exploration, delivered this robust response to Bjorn Lomborg at the BCO's 2009 Conference. Speaking after Lomborg in a plenary session titled 'Greenpoint or greenwash: The environment in a recession', Pawlyn methodically dismantled the Lomborg analysis and exposed the questionable use of statistics. The Exploration team had carefully prepared for the debate through extensive research. The talk is in three parts.
Bjorn Lomborg did not consent to his presentation being filmed so, anyone unfamiliar with his arguments can view the first half of this 'Authors at Google' talk that he gave in September 2007 or his shorter talk on TED.com . A transcript of the Q&A, and all links to talks, can be found on Explorations website: www.exploration-architecture.com

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Part 1 BCO debate
• Part 2 BCO debate
• Part 3 BCO debate
• Exploration
• Exploration Architecture
• Michael Pawlyn
• pawlyn
• Bjorn Lomborg
• Sustainability
• Sahara Forest Project
• BCO 2009 conference
• BCO
• debate Bjorn Lomborg
• pawlyn lomborg debate
• Biomimicry
• Sustainable architecture

[witalian1]

Pawlyn very disingenuously said that Bjorn should try to tell the people who will run out of fresh water that the global warming is not an urgent problem. He disregards the fact that Bjorn prioritizes not problems but solutions, and that the water crysis is a very high priority for Bjorn, unilke cutting carbon emissions which will not realy help prevent the water crysis.

[BiomimicryArch]

@witalian1

My point is that the first step towards implementing solutions is to acknowledge the full extent of the problem. BL consistently distorts peer-reviewed literature to argue that the impacts of climate change will not be that bad & consequently it is better to adapt than mitigate. I disagree. A 2 degree C temperature rise will subject an extra 2.1 billion people to water stress. I am in favour of solutions (see first half of my talk) but not to the exclusion of mitigation measures

[witalian1]

From what I've heared from Bjorn, he acnoledges that global warming is a problem and it must be addressed but he states that it must be addressed in a smart way, and there's better things to do than cutting carbon emissions. Pawlyn shows some very costeffective solutions to some problems, and I don't think this goes against Bjorn since Bjorn argues for costefficiency.

[BiomimicryArch]

@witalian1

His view that cutting carbon emissions will do little good is not shared by the worlds most eminent climate scientists. Cutting carbon now will help to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Who should we believe - the 800 climate experts and the 2500 reviewers that form the IPCC or one statistician with a proven record of misrepresenting data? Its clear to me. The cost effective examples I show are to counter his statement that cutting carbon costs $20 per tonne

[witalian1]

@BiomimicryArch

Ok. I am not climatologist so let's suppose that cutting carbon can solve the problem.

How do you make China, India and the USA cut their emmissions without destroying their economy? And how much time and initial investments will it take to implement cost-effective solutions on a large enough scale throughout the entire world and make them so exessible for everybody so the economy can grow while emmissions drop.

[BiomimicryArch]

Its difficult to give a full answer here but plenty of people such as Amory Lovins and David MacKay have described how major carbon cuts can be made without damaging the economy. There are also a lot of individual actions that can be taken try How to live a low carbon life by Chris Goodall. Many of the technologies we need already exist (such as CSP) and if we internalised the costs of carbon rather than subsidising fossil fuel industries we would see rapid progress.

[carboncoach]

Michael Pawlyn presents a strong coherent and well-informed case against Lomborg's recipe for fossil complacency.

He lands some big punches on prevarication, scepticism and denial.

Well said Michael, and well done.

[thescowlingschnauzer]

Mr. Pawlyn offers some valuable complimentary material to Mr. Lomborg's analysis of prioritization of solutions to global problems. It's a pity that he resorted to personal attacks, accusing Mr. Lomborg of willfully distorting statistics for the personal gain of making his case. All the while, Mr. Pawlyn builds the case for investing in green archtitecture, his own profession.

Both men have good ideas. I wish they were working together rater than arguing against one another.

[amabo187]

I like what BL has to say as well as this rebuttal. We need more debates and discussions not just presentations. Back and forth is important. We don't want more Solyndras where we invest in waste. We need energy cheaply right? Also the US and most economies are going broke it seems. Very serious problems all around. Fracking which pollutes the water table isn't global warming but it's dangerous.

[RadioactiveBraunMan]

yeah thats not a debate, its a response at best. Easy to bash BL without him being there to respond.

Also, his supposed debunking of BL seems quite inflated and is in parts even extremely misleading.

Quite sad, isnt it?

Personally I acknowledge climate change to be real and happening, but, the pseudo religion that is floating around it is disastrous. Since as always ideology blinds you from the truth..

[amcnea]

Wait, where is the rest of it?  Generally a debate includes two people. Where does Bjorn get to rebut? I feel cheated. Completely misnamed video. Total fail.

[SSuperCuriouss]

What is China or Dubai's response to eco-friendly building?

And who else is currently rapidly building?

[iamtheman123]

Where is the footage of Bjorn Speaking? Why is he blurred out? at 8:26 - This is ridiculous.. Read the transcript during the Q&A session and Bjorn points out all of the flaws in the three parts of Pawlyn's debate, however you wouldn't know that because Bjorn seems to be censored, a real scholarly debate if you ask me...

[sgtmcwallace]

this man is excellent, and in the most succinct way i have ever seen destroys the lomborgian skepticism which in light of pawlyn's analysis can be seen to be merely as filler, rationalizing a cumbersome stasis in things rather than searching for and implementing innovative methods under the guise of keeping a cool conversation about the potential damage and harm of climate change. Implying that switching to sustainable methods hurts an economy ignores savings and long term innovative value.

[Audioholics]

from 5:30 to 6:36 should be recommended viewing in basic biology classes in public school to bring awareness of the importance of bio-diversity. It should also be required viewing by the Religious Right and politically ignorant (aka. Rush, Beck, Palin, Hannity and Fox news).

[witalian1]

@BiomimicryArch

What you described depends on convincing a lot people to be bothered with something and possibly even make some sacrifice to do something from witch they are not gonna have immediate benefit.

I think that is totally unrealistic.