This house believes there is no techno-fix for the global ecological problem - Opening speeches

First Proposing speech

The last twenty years have seen a new global issue arise. In fact, while Europe and USA (mainly) kept polluting the atmosphere, for the good of mass consumption, scientists started to mention the impact of pollution on the environment. The concept of global warming was born. Little by little, people around the globe started to realize that their behaviour had an impact on our planet and that to prevent it from getting warmer and warmer because of CO2 emissions, their habits had to change...

by TM

First Opposing speech

Firstly, we cannot deny the fact that there is really a global ecological problem. A large majority of the scientist agree this fact. So, the point is: does actual science enough advanced to fix this problem? Obviously the answer is: Yes!…

by DB 

First Proposing speech

The last twenty years have seen a new global issue arise. In fact, while Europe and USA (mainly) kept polluting the atmosphere, for the good of mass consumption, scientists started to mention the impact of pollution on the environment. The concept of global warming was born. Little by little, people around the globe started to realize that their behaviour had an impact on our planet and that to prevent it from getting warmer and warmer because of CO2 emissions, their habits had to change. 

Politicians tried to set up new rules and objectives in order to lower down those emissions but some countries around the world refused to put the maintenance of the ice bank before their economical growth. Today, negotiations are still in a dead end and the already existing rules or quotas are far too low comparing to what should be done to come back to a reasonable level of emissions. 

Therefore, we understand the passion for the role new technologies could play in preventing the world from heading for a fall. Green energies such as photovoltaic, wind mills or even nuclear power plants have the wind in their sails. In such a difficult context, where the future of our Planet is at stake, it is quite comfortable for us to have faith in something as governments around the world can’t take any decisions to set up a global road map for the next twenty or thirty years.

If politicians can’t help us from acting against global warming maybe technology can? This is what everyone seems to think and the promise of a technofix down the road leads us easily into temptation. But things are not that easy. We all want to believe in an easy way of avoiding catastrophic scenarios we all heard of but do we want to take refuge behind the power of technology? By the end of 2011, we will all be one of seven billion people living on Earth. Developing countries are focusing on their GDP and even if they try to integrate global warming issues into the equation, it is definitely not their priority at the moment. This is understandable when you see how USA tried to avoid the subject whereas they should have showed the example.

Therefore, technology is definitely not enough to cope with global warming and ecological concerns.  Of course it can help a lot but we need more than that. For the moment, technology only allows to deal with the symptoms instead of curing the disease. We all need to do an introspective work in order to decide what we want for our planet and what we consider as the true cost of environmental destruction. Furthermore, we should not forget that global warming is just one challenge among others and it shouldn’t be treated apart from disparities between people. We now need more balance. Nature reminded us it had to be respected and protected. In this quest for the safety of the planet Earth, decision time has arrived for humanity. 

by TM

First Opposing speech

Firstly, we cannot deny the fact that there is really a global ecological problem. A large majority of the scientist agree this fact. So, the point is: does actual science enough advanced to fix this problem? Obviously the answer is: Yes!

There is something nasty to say there is no technological solution against the climate problem ... In fact, IPCC experts argue that climate change is virtually irreversible ... The purpose of this confession is certainly to make people react; hoping a change of attitude but knowing human nature I am quite skeptical about it. 

Therefore, this statement implies that only a global change of lifestyle would eventually solve the climate problem. We all know that it will not, because even if Western countries are aware of the enormous challenges, emerging countries do not pay attention, because they want what we got in the last century: wealth and comfort. China is by far the country most polluter in the world, and with his unbridled industrial development, this effect will become even stronger. Maybe in twenty years, attitudes will have changed, but obviously this is not for today or even tomorrow.

In fact, if you say that science can’t solve our problem and that you realize that attitudes will not change before long, what is left of our future? That would mean we are doomed? I just can’t accept this vision of the future.

Humanity's ability to innovate is prodigious, science advances steadily in many directions and it would be wrong to think she can do nothing against climate change.

It is true that the subject is extremely complicated and poorly understood. The most powerful supercomputers are unable to accurately predict climate change in coming years as there are too many variable at the level of our planet. 

However, there is a technology that could solve the problem: geoengineering, i.e. the engineering of the Earth. It's not really a new science; attempts have been undertaken since the 1950s to control the local climate for military purposes. Actually, the Russians and the Chinese pride themselves of regularly changing the weather to shine at some important celebrations. The Chinese authorities even have a Bureau of Change the Weather, which is the most important official center currently in operation. These projects, however, are used locally, and their implementation on a larger scale does not seem feasible at the moment because they were not planned for it.

For those who remain skeptical about these projects (whose operation is effected by a releasing of certain products in the upper atmosphere), the famous Stanford University has also started research into the development of a technical change in climate large scale. Scientists have observed and analyzed the effects of volcanic eruptions some very important, and it appeared that in some cases there was a drop in global temperature of up to 0.5 degrees. 

A proposed solution would be to release at very high altitudes some chemicals components that have the characteristic of reflecting sunlight.

Another solution should be to put on orbit a giant mirror, reflecting a part of sunlight.

CO2 sinks are a very interesting solution, which is to inject the gas into the depths of the earth or the seabed, so it is captured and stored.

These solutions could be greatly improved and new ones developed. This would require to grant budgets to research in this area. Given the scope of work, it is necessary to take all possible precautions to avoid getting the opposite effect...

Unfortunately it seems more profitable for manufacturers to develop technologies called "green", which can slightly reduce the pollution emitted, than to really address the problem and provide an emergency solution...

When people and industries will really be aware of the enormous cost that climate change may pose to our economies, they will probably decide to act...

From a technical standpoint, there are or may soon exist solutions that should be mastered. But from an economic standpoint, they are extremely expensive and unprofitable.

So it's always the same problem, more related to our consumerism than to any technological limit.

by DB