The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
DEBATE: McKibben vs. Epstein—Are Fossil Fuels a Risk to the Planet?
After one hour and thirty-nine minutes of watching Bill McKibben "debate" Alex Epstein on whether fossil fuels pose a risk to the planet, my daughter and I were outraged that Epstein is capable of taking such a humanistic, anthropocentric position on the issues regarding the health of our planet.
Nothing could better demonstrate Epstein's complete lack of a biocentric viewpoint and understanding of culture, science and humanity than his statement regarding the Maldive Islands—an island nation south of India consisting of 1,200 islands, 200 of which are inhabited. If you know anything about the plight of Mohamed Nasheed and his fight to bring democracy to his homeland and protect his country from the rising seas, you would clearly agree that this statement sums up Epstein's inability to properly assess anything to do with what's best for our planet, its people or any other species:
"And as for the Maldives, I don't think the evidence is what Bill says it is, but in any case, they need to industrialize too."
I encourage you to take the time and watch this "debate." McKibben provides essential data regarding the threats of climate change and the solutions that can get us out of this mess.
Read our post just prior to the debate:
"My problem is, the depth of trouble from climate change is so great it's very hard to make it coherent in a few short minutes. So, I guess I'll be speaking fast," said McKibben in reference to tonight's debate.
We're looking forward to streaming this debate live on EcoWatch.org. While the debate is going on, we encourage you to comment below.
Read our post from Sunday regarding the debate:
On Monday, Nov. 5 at Duke University at 7 p.m. EST, McKibben will be arguing that "fossil fuels area a risk to the planet" and Epstein will argue that "fossil fuels improve the planet." We'll be streaming the debate live on EcoWatch.org, so be sure to tune in.
McKibben kindly replied to a late night email from me and provided this statement regarding the debate:
"I'm not a great debater, and I guess these guys have been preparing for this all fall, so it makes me a mite nervous, but I will do my best as always to explain the trouble we're in. The topic we agreed on is 'fossil fuel is a risk to the planet,' and I think that's the most important message I can imagine."
Check out the promo video for the debate:
This is certainly a debate not to miss.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Dr. Brian R. Shmaefsky
One year after the Flint Water Crisis I was invited to participate in a water rights session at a conference hosted by the US Human Rights Network in Austin, Texas in 2015. The reason I was at the conference was to promote efforts by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) to encourage scientists to shine a light on how science intersects with human rights, in the U.S. as well as in the context of international development. My plan was to sit at an information booth and share my stories about water quality projects I spearheaded in communities in Bangladesh, Colombia, and the Philippines. I did not expect to be thrown into conversations that made me reexamine how scientists use their knowledge as a public good.
The shipping industry is coming to grips with its egregious carbon footprint, as it has an outsized contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and to the dumping of chemicals into open seas. Already, the global shipping industry contributes about 2 percent of global carbon emissions, about the same as Germany, as the BBC reported.
The Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC overlooks the Tidal Basin, a man-made body of water surrounded by cherry trees. Visitors can stroll along the water's edge, gazing up at the stately monument.
But at high tide, people are forced off parts of the path. Twice a day, the Tidal Basin floods and water spills onto the walkway.