Professors Moomaw and Everett Face Off in 5th Annual Debate
W
ith questions about the national economy and energy policy gaining greater recognition as questions of global importance, the Fletcher stage was appropriately set for the fifth annual Moomaw-Everett debate, held on October 16, 2008. Introduced 5 years ago by a PhD student who “thought things were getting too tame here at Fletcher,” the Moomaw-Everett debate has been known for encouraging lively dialogue about a notoriously emotional topic. This year, moderated by PhD student Elke Jahns, William Moomaw, professor of International Environmental Policy, and Bruce Everett, adjunct associate professor of International Business, discussed the question: “Climate v. Economy: What’s the Right Tradeoff?”
Moomaw began the debate by arguing that climate change is not antithetical to economic growth, but that climate change and investing in renewable energy can create economic gain. Addressing climate change, he argued, would create jobs and a sustainable economy. In addition, the estimated cost of avoiding the worst climate damage would be the equivalent of 1% of the gross world product. In contrast, by not focusing enough on renewable energy, “we are essentially fueling a collapsing economy with fossil fuels.” An increasingly changing climate will lead to heat waves and agricultural losses, among other things. After listing examples of countries who have reaped economic gain from renewable energy, including Germany, Canada and Denmark, Moomaw argued that the only reason the United States has refrained from following suit is because it is held back by powerful interests engaging in a disinformation campaign.
Everett, on the other hand, argued that we do not understand climate science enough to justify creating new policy. Stating decisively that the scientific debate over climate change is not over, Everett noted that scientists continue to produce greatly disparate results when attempting to estimate the amount of global surface warming over time. He also argued that the low-cost options currently available have negligible impact on reducing CO2 emissions; the actual cost of making a noticeable difference is too high and unjustifiable without further research. Acknowledging the importance of understanding climate change, Everett closed with several recommendations, including engaging in further study of climate change, looking at the 100-year horizon rather than the 30-year horizon, rekindling the civilian nuclear power industry, and encouraging private sector research.
While the great debaters were as cordial as ever, neither could resist a few. Arguing that he and Professor Moomaw were unlike the 2008 presidential candidates and going to discuss the issues rather than try to smear each other, Everett assured the audience, “I am giving no credence to the rumor that Professor Moomaw drives a Hummer.” Moomaw took his rebuttal opportunity to debunk the myth that Professor Everett’s vehicle of choice was a Prius.
The tone was light, but the discussion serious. The number of questions asked by Fletcher students after the formal debate emphasized the importance to the Fletcher community of the political, economic and scientific issues raised by the debate. A final question, put forth by a Fletcher student at the end of the debate crystallized the question that seemed to be propelling both sides of the debate: “how can we stimulate the private sector to do the research thoroughly enough to avoid destroying the economy but fast enough to allow the market to save us all?”
Aparna Polavarapu F’10Moomaw Presentation [powerpoint]
Everett Presentation [powerpoint]