Debate: MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY

Hi guys, check out this link to a debate questioning our efforts to reduce carbon emissions (alternative energy, measuring footprints) has any value on helping the environment. The actual debate is part of a series by a legit debate show "intelligence squared" which gathers world famous leaders to speak before the audience. Although it is two years old, it still brings many good arguments.

Link: http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/major-reductions-in-carbon-emissions-are-not-worth-the-money/

The debate is rather long, and after all introductions actually begins at 6:45, so just scrub there.

"Intelligence squared" does a very good job when it chooses its speakers by picking those who may seem biased on one side to argue another. In this debate, one of the speakers is an environmental writer from environmental capital Copenhagen, Denmark who argues AGAINST reducing carbon emissions because he believes the efforts overweigh the effects.

The speakers are very interesting. The audience is surveyed before and after the debate, with the winning debate team being the one that has convinced the most people in the audience to change their minds.

If you look at the results for this debate:

Pre-Debate Poll Results
16% For | 50% Against | 35%

Post Debate Poll Results
42% For | 48% Against | 10%

Note that "For" is the agreement that MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY, while "Against" is that major reductions are worth the money.