(Nov. 26, 2010) Convocation Hall was at standing-room-only capacity on November 8, 2010, as students, professors and Kingston residents packed in tight for “The Great Climate Debate.”
Presented by the Queen’s Environmental Law Association (QELA), the debate brought together four of Canada’s leading climate change experts to speak on both scientific and political aspects of the global warming discourse.
Photo by Matthew Gibson
Moderated by Law Dean Bill Flanagan, the debate opened with Queen’s Biology Professor John Smol butting heads with Energy Probe’s executive director Lawrence Solomon over the claim that humanity’s emissions of greenhouse gases will very likely cause climate change with severe, worldwide impacts in this century. “Many, if not most, of the world’s top scientists disagree,” Solomon said. “No one can credibly claim that the science is settled on climate change.
Photo by Greg Black
Queen’s Biology Professor John Smol and Lawrence Solomon of Energy Probe
He then launched into a laundry list of notable scientists who have refuted a connection between human activity and global warming. Rather, they claim that for the last few hundred years the earth has simply been climbing out of the last ice age, explaining the continued increases in global temperature.
Professor Smol, with vocal support from a contingent of Queen’s Biology students, joked, “I’m going to disagree with everything you say,” prompting laughter from the audience. Smol, a Canada Research Chair in Environmental Change, summarized the scientific evidence illustrating dramatic historical changes to environmental indicators such as glaciers, sea levels and arctic sea ice. “We don’t have all the answers, but we have enough,” Smol concluded.
The policy debate was still more heated, with Matthew Bramley, director of the Pembina Institute’s climate change program, arguing that the world desperately needs leaders to demonstrate that cleaning up our climate is possible. One of Canada’s most active climate change advocates, Bramley urged that the benefits of even a miniscule change by Canada would far outweigh the costs to achieve such change. “This argument is about doing the right thing,” he said. “All the other side has given us is a rationale for doing nothing,” he added in a reference to Queen’s Law Professor Bruce Pardy’s claim that action by Canada towards reducing emissions will have no influence on the international community.
“All countries act in their own self interest,” Pardy, an environmental law and policy expert, stated, before warning the audience, “Don’t be a doormat.” Instead, he argued, Canada must act in such a way that makes a significant international agreement possible.
A large contingent from Queen’s Backing Action on Climate Change was present at the debate, carrying signs that read “Polar Bears Can’t Swim Forever” and “Mother Earth is Angry.” When asked about the debate, a representative of the group emphasized the importance of open scientific discussion. Daniel Indacochea, MA ‘11, remarked, “there aren’t enough of these open debates. I really like the head-to-head format because they can call each other out on their arguments.”
Organizers were thrilled with the event’s success. QELA’s Patrick Stratton, MA(Econ) ‘08/Law ‘11, said, “the best part of this event was witnessing the passion of the Queen’s community. Students from multiple disciplines, faculty members and community members of all ages packed a theatre and showed that they care about understanding the issue of climate change and the implications of Canada’s actions.”
Faculty of Law, Queen’s University
Energy Probe 