This is sure to be better than any of the pathetic blathering you’ll encounter in the Presidential “debates” which are nothing more than made-for-TV, content-free, beauty contests.
McKibben had declared the fossil fuel industry to be immoral, an environmental menace–he had declared open war on the fossil fuel industry–the war was celebrated by the media–and yet the industry was silent. Keep in mind McKibben is no piker–this is a man who in 2009 organized 5200 simultaneous protests for 350.org.
Someone needed to say something. And not just on a corner of the Internet the environmental establishment could evade, but somewhere that the truth could not be ignored–a public debate, recorded for posterity and promoted around the world.
So I challenged McKibben to a public debate. I stated my reasons onYouTube, and I offered McKibben $10,000 and a venue at Duke University (thanks to the Program on Values and Ethics in the Marketplace). To his credit, he quickly accepted.
Thus, on November 5, at Duke University, McKibben will be arguing that “fossil fuels are a risk to the planet.” I will be arguing that “fossil fuels improve the planet.”
This is the first debate ever where a world-class environmentalist will be challenged by the powerful environmental case for fossil fuels. It is an opportunity to show the world how the truth about fossil fuels stacks up against the best the other side has to offer.
I do hope this will be informative. I am very aware of the role McKibben plays in the “E”nvironmental* movement, but I know nothing about who Epstein is. Maybe, if Epstein is anything like Wintercow or the few other real environmentalists I know, he can make his case to McKibben in such a way that McKibben, or at least some of his followers, can begin to take a look at environmental problems from a different perspective.
My dreams aside, here is what I find really interesting about McKibben: he is one of the best examples of why it is so important that individuals begin to realize that intentions =/= results. It’s very hard to have a discussion about alternative solutions to environmental issues with many “E”nvironmentalists, especially those that follow McKibben unwaveringly. Even so, what I get from most reasonable environmentalist students is usually something along the lines of the following:
“Yeah, I know McKibben might not be exactly right about the science, but he’s just trying to do the right thing.”
“He might be wrong about the CO2 levels thing, but at least he is getting people interested in the environmental movement.”
“Does it really matter if he is right about this one issue? He’s at least trying to solve the problem, which is more than most people.”
I could go on, but you get the idea. When I raise objections by stating that perhaps it *does* matter if McKibben has it all wrong, because he can in fact be making policy proposals that would make all of us worse off, I am lucky is the objection is even acknowledged, let alone seriously considered.
Well said, Student! Unlike many, you get your ideas across in one page. You get an A from me, and I am a tough grader.
What I want to know is how long WC has been saving that pic for his headline.
Also, Student, that is an A for a blog post, not for a weekly paper, which I have to assume would be even more polished. You do a great job of getting to the point.
Haha, I appreciate knowing that you approve of the comment. It takes me forever to try to articulate my ideas in writing, especially concisely. Hopefully with practice I can learn to write more quickly (and one day I can learn how to speak more articulately).