Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> CNN YouTube Debate on Climate Change, in association with Siemens.
>> PALV: Have you not wondered why it's so called Mother Earth? Throughout all of history,
it has given birth, this bluish green ball gently floating through space has potential
for life quite like no other place. It gives and it gives and has nothing to ask. To treat
it with love and respect is our task. For the moment, the future we can't comprehend
is the world as we know will soon come to an end. But there is still some time to undo
what's been done, requiring our species to all act as one. With wind turbines turning
and running on air, solar panel sourcing our sun's constant glare, we could cut our emissions
and clean up with care, make it our mission to heal and repair. Salvage and save for all
that is worth; secure our existence as people of earth.
>> ANDERSON: Hello, and welcome to our program, the CNN YouTube Debate on Climate Change.
We are in Copenhagen, in Denmark. I'm Becky Anderson, your host for the debate. I want
to let you know that this is a little different than the type of forums most of you will have
been used to seeing. I'll be moderating, but I won't be asking the questions. Through our
partnership with YouTube, everyone around the globe has had a chance to be a part of
this discussion. The poem we've just heard came from Martin Palv [PH] in the U.K. His
video, one of thousands that we've received. Over the next hour, the questions you'll see
capture the buzz of the global community with many voted on by you, the viewers, using Google's
new moderator tool. So, let's get on with it, shall we? To answer those questions, we've
assembled a distinguished panel of environmental experts. Let's meet them now. First off, a
man who needs no introduction here in Copenhagen, I'm going to do it anyway though, Yvo De Boer,
Head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He is a man with a big,
big job in charge of getting a deal done to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to
expire in 2012. Well, next to him is Daryl Hannah, acclaimed actress and avid advocate
for the environment, a celebrity that has been front and center on the ground for many
grass roots efforts. To her left, writer, Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist
penned both "The World is Flat" and "Hot, Flat and Crowded." Three Pulitzer Prizes to
his name, he is always provocative. And finally, our resident skeptic, Bjorn Lomborg. He wrote
the book on it, so to say, author of "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide
to Global Warming." All of you, we are absolutely delighted to have you, and thank you all for
joining us.
All right, well thousands of videos, many questions, let's get going. I want to kick
off with our first question, which comes to us from John in Ireland. Take a look at this.
>> JOHN: My name is John Victory. I'm from Ireland. Look outside and you'll see the weather
changing. The rain is getting worst than ever it was before. This is Ireland. I see the
places all over the world changing, including places I've visited like West Bengal, which
is now under threat. I want to know how seriously the leaders of the world are taking this.
>> ANDERSON: All right, straight to the point. John's setting the scene for just how important
is a deal on Climate Change and how seriously, Yvo, are world leaders taking this?
>> DE BOER: Actually, I didn't know the rain could get any worst in Ireland. But it's--it
seems it is. I think they are. I've never seen a moment in history when so many world
leaders have taken an interest in this topic. We have 115 of them on the way to Copenhagen
at the moment to be here on Friday and make sure that we get a strong resounding result
out of this meeting. >> ANDERSON: Daryl, are you impressed or unimpressed?
>> HANNAH: Well, it's definitely a defining moment for politicians and world leaders to
take a stand to make real change in moving beyond the fossil fuel economy into a new
energy independent, a new energy economy, basically.
>> FRIEDMAN: My own take is that what happens here is certainly important. It could inspire
a lot of action around the world. But I tend to take a more American focus. If United States
doesn't get involved with this and take the lead, I don't think we can really solve a
scale problem like this. And right now, I think that that's still very much up in the
air. >> ANDERSON: Bjorn.
>> LOMBORG: Well, there's a lot of buzz. And as Yvo said, 115 leaders are coming to Copenhagen.
But what are they actually going to agree on? They're basically going to agree on making
lots of carbon cuts, which they've agreed on for the last 18 years and they have failed
for the last 18 years. So, I think we possibly want to ask, "Don't you want to do something
smarter and something different that would actually work this time?"
>> ANDERSON: I want to discuss all of what you've been brought up as we move through
this next hour. Not everyone, of course, though, buys the notion of man-made Climate Change.
The issue is not black and white. Listen to what Felix from Germany has to say.
>>FELIX: Hello everybody. I'm asking myself why people don't recognize movies like The
Great Global Warming Swindle, where scientists all over the world doubt that humans caused
the change of our climate. Climate is changing since millions of years again and again, and
the mainstream media ignores scientific facts and real knowledge about the actual development.
You're scaring people. You're putting them under pressure. You're making them feel guilty.
>> ANDERSON: Making us feel guilty. A good start this discussion early, I think. For
many of us, the Climategate, email scandal is still fresh in the mind. And a lot of people
remain unconvinced that this is a man-made problem. So, let's nail this early on. Bjorn,
so what is your thought to what Felix says? >> LOMBORG: Well, I think there's some truth
to what his trying to portray. Let's just get this fixed now. I think that I speak for
all four of us here. Global Warming is real. It's man-made. It is an important problem.
What we do need to recognize is that the incessant move to just saying there's only one solution,
namely cut carbon emissions, and it's going to be expensive for you. It's actually making
a lot of people turn around and say, "I don't want to be a part of this." And that's what
makes people and we see this in polls around the world, that people are turning more skeptical,
a lot of people are saying, they don't believe in it, that's wrong. But I see why it's happening
and we need to move people back from that. We need to say, "This is about making smart
policies, not ones that won't work and that will just cost a lot.
>> ANDERSON: Thom. >> FRIEDMAN: Well, I don't think this is that
complicated. The planet is enveloped in a blanket of greenhouse gases. That's what keeps
our planet nice and perfect temperature for us to inhabit it. It's made up of CO2, methane,
and other green house gases. As we pump more in, it will trap more heat, melt more ice,
raise more sea levels. We know that. >> ANDERSON: Uh-huh.
>> FRIEDMAN: What we don't know is what other feedbacks could happen, what other things
could ameliorate the climate system. As the question says, it's very complicated. We don't
know everything, when we'll hit red lines. But here's what we do know, that green house
gas up there that's going to trap that heat stays there for hundreds, if not, thousands
of years. That means, okay, that what we're doing if it is leading to a catastrophic outcome,
once it starts, it can't be stopped. So, when I see something that has some chance, a high
degree of irreversibility and some chance of being catastrophic, what I do, I buy insurance.
And to me, that's what this is all about. The uncertainties around Climate Change are
not a reason not to act. They're a reason to act.
>> ANDERSON: Yvo, just on the back of that, agree?
>> DE BOER: Well, first of all to reassure Bjorn that he is not speaking on my behalf,
I think that this--I think that this is a very serious issue. If I were to go out in
this country and buy a packet of cigarettes, it would probably says on it, "Smoking may
cause your death." May cause your death, it doesn't say, "Will cause your death." Is that
a reason to assume that smoking is safe? I think we have an abundance of very robust
scientific evidence that tells us we're in deep trouble and something has happened that
contrary to what was raised in the question, has not happened to us in the past. And we
need to act on it, not in one simple way, that's what makes it so complicated. But in
a multitude of ways, by looking at the lifestyles of people, by looking at how we move ourselves
around, by looking at how we make the products that we like to consume. It's a complicated
issue. >> ANDERSON: Daryl, I'll come back to you
and you. I've got to take a very short break, but we will promise to come back. Right back,
up next we'll meet the winners of the Raise Your Voice contest, which had more than 7
million page and video views, plus more of your questions and videos. Here's one of the
more creative ones that came our way. >> We keep polluting the oceans and rivers.
>> The number of vehicles keep raising non-stop. >> The excessive and unnecessary consuming
keeps being stimulated. >> We continue producing big amounts of non-recycling
trash. >> People keep agreeing with all the Government's
actions. >> The government keeps their eyes closed.
What we'd like to ask you is... >> Why not start changing now?
>> ANDERSON: This is the CNN YouTube Debate on Climate Change. I'm Becky Anderson and
the video that you just saw came from Brazil. The Director Brino [PH] was one of the winners
of the Raise Your Voice contest on YouTube as by the global community. And he
is in the audience with us here in Copenhagen. Let's give him a hand. Thank you once again,
Brino [PH]. And we will meet some of the other winners a little later in this show. Well,
our questions have in come in in more than 15 languages. Our next one comes from Gaelag
in France, and he has the raised the issue of accountability. Let's listen to him.
>> GAELAG: It's good that countries commit to emission reductions of CO2, but if there
are no penalties, if they fail to meet their commitments, so what?
>> ANDERSON: Well, an interesting point he makes. What happens if countries simply bowl-cut
meeting their targets, will they be punished? Is essentially what he is asking. We have
spoken about this over the past couple of weeks in Copenhagen. Internationally enforcible
agreements, I mean, you admitted that it's almost impossible to nail down. So, how would
the world, Yvo, police any agreement? >> DE BOER: Well, the first thing, I think,
is incredibly important is moral policing. In the clip we saw just now, it was said that
people do what the Governments want, but I hope that Governments do what the people want.
And I think if we get a clear signal that people want to see action on this, then Governments
will be held morally accountable. Yes, of course, in legal terms you can do things in
an international agreement to safeguard that it's implemented. In the case of Kyoto, if
you fail to meet your target, you'll get a 30% penalty next time around. But at the end
of the day, you see very few wanted posters for prime ministers and presidents hanging
at airports because they have not met an international obligation.
>> ANDERSON: Everybody, is that good enough, though, anybody?
>> HANNAH: I think there should be sanctions. I mean, if people don't meet the--there should
be a legally binding agreement. And if not, there should be sanctions, because I'm afraid
that people won't mitigate their carbon. >> FRIEDMAN: I think you really--I just don't
see a mechanism that we could do that, though, quite honestly. I'd like to see it be much
more of a competition. And I would like to see my country to take the lead in that competition.
You know in the Cold War, Beck, we had a space race who could be the first to put a man on
the moon. Only two countries were involved and only one could win. I think what we need
now is an earth race, which country can be the first to invent the most green technology
so men and women can stay here on earth, okay? And I want to see America competing against
China, China trying to beat Japan, Japan trying to beat Russia, Russia trying to beat Brazil.
I think we'll get there a lot faster than trying to have an international court saying,
"You violated your CO2 emissions." >> ANDERSON: Bjorn.
>> LOMBORG: That would be really cool if we could do that. But the problem is it was exciting
to go to the moon, but essentially, we're not promising anything new. If we manage to
get cheap energy from renewables, we'll have achieved exactly what we already have. That's
why it's so hard. Essentially, this... >> FRIEDMAN: I mean, emissions free energy,
do we have that? >> LOMBORG: No, we don't have that, but we
do have the energy, that's what people see. The point here is to say we're all sort of
neglect, neglecting, sorry, the elephant in the room, the point that as long as this is
incredibly expensive, we're not going to do it.
>> FRIEDMAN: Well, Bjorn, how did things get less expensive? They get them by moving down
the cost volume manufacturing learning curve by big countries.
>> LOMBORG: No, no. >> FRIEDMAN: Wait a minute. That's what happened
to your cell phone, that's what happened to your laptop, that's what's already happening
to solar, that's which already happened in the wind.
>> LOMBORG: Great. And, Thom, did you see anyone support your cell phone, or support
your computer? No, the point was we supported their research and development into those
products until they were so cheap that everybody wants to buy them.
>> FRIEDMAN: But people support coal, they support nuclear, they support...
>> ANDERSON: Terrific, guys. This is Gaelag's question about policing. This is a question
about policing. >> FRIEDMAN: Let's just take the same subsidies
that the dirty fuels give and give them to the clean fuels.
>> LOMBORG: Sorry, I just need to say... >> FRIEDMAN: We can't even replace it.
>> LOMBORG: But it's a very, very popular argument. But let's come off the high horse
and realize the $130 billion that we give in subsidies are not given in the West. They're
given in many poor countries, basically, to support people who have $1 a day or less.
Now, you can say all you want, "Oh, we shouldn't be doing that," but it's not going to happen.
Let's be honest and say this is about investing in research and development that we can do,
that's much cheaper, and that will actually work for Climate Change.
>> ANDERSON: Is he right or wrong, Yvo? >> DE BOER: I think he's right that we need
to invest in research and development. But I think that Thom is also right that we need
to create the right policy environment that will allow the technologies that we need to
emerge into a market. >> ANDERSON: We're going to have to take a
very short break at this point, but stick with us. Ahead the story from the developing
world, and what Global Warming will really mean there. But before we go to the break,
Archbishop Desmond Tutu got onto YouTube to speak on behalf of those at risk.
>> TOTO: All scientific prognoses show that the continent of Africa will be severely heated
if we do not act now. The consequences could be conflicts and instability, which are things
we must avoid at any price. >> ANDERSON: Well, you're back with the CNN
YouTube Debate on Climate Change. I'm Becky Anderson in Copenhagen. Well, at the very
heart of this debate is the division between nations, rich against poor, polluters versus
the polluted. Well, our next quick question comes from Oluwashola, a Nigerian based in
Morocco. >> OLUWASHOLA: Here is my question. How many
African leaders were invited to Copenhagen? Since this issue is not just a matter of the
world leaders of the advanced country, it's the matter that affects every one of us. My
second question is what can Africa themselves do to make sure this problem will not happen?
>> ANDERSON: All right, to help us answer that question, let's bring in a very special
panelist. Joining us from Geneva in Switzerland, the former U.N. Secretary General and Nobel
Peace Prize winner, Kofi Annan. You are more than welcome, sir. You head up one of the
foremost 10 things, of course, on Global Warming. You heard the question does Africa have a
loud enough voice? >> ANNAN: No, Africa doesn't, but I don't
think the voice should be Africa's alone. We are all in this together. What is clear
is that Africa and the least developed countries, which are not so much responsible for the
problem of Climate Change, bear the greatest brunt. And we hope that as we come together
in Copenhagen, we will all understand that we are in the same boat. And in the case of
Africa, there's also another point that we need to bear in mind, the question of equity
and justice. If indeed these countries are not responsible for the vast part of the problem
we are facing, we do have some responsibilities towards them.
>> ANDERSON: Has or is Africa doing enough for itself at this point?
>> ANNAN: I think some African countries are doing enough trying to make sure that they
replant forest, they stop extension of deserts. They are now struggling to find the right
seeds, the drought resistances that will help them, and they are very conscious of the impact
of Climate Change on development, and are aware that if they don't take measures, it
will roll back even the gains they have made. >> ANDERSON: Stay with us a moment, Mr. Annan.
Let me move this on just a little a bit here, because this next video comes from Minar Pimpel
[PH], who currently leads the U.N. Millennium Campaigns work in Southeast Asia. Here is
his question. >> MINAR: Climate Change crisis has hit the
hardest the most vulnerable and the poorest people in the world. I'm at present in one
of such countries, Bangladesh. We believe that the climate crisis and eradication of
poverty go hand in hand. What do you think that the world leaders should do so that we
have a just deal in Copenhagen, which integrates the eradication of poverty, achievement of
millennium development goals in terms of dealing with the climate crisis?
>> ANDERSON: Well, people like Pimpel [PH] are demanding action. The question is, are
they getting it? Mr. Annan. >> ANNAN: I don't think we are getting it
yet, but it ought to be possible if the political will is there. What we have to be careful
here is that lots of big sums are being talked about in Copenhagen to help the poor countries
in adapt--in mitigation adaptation and allowed to permit transfer of Green technology.
>> ANDERSON: Are you happy or disappointed with what's being done?
>> ANNAN: No, I'm saying--no, I'm not happy. Lots of promises have been made, which have
not been kept, and only promises kept are promises which matter. The countries themselves
are trying, we see it all around the world, but they need help. I don't think enough is
being done. >> ANDERSON: And with that, we're going to
leave then. Mr. Annan, we thank you very much indeed for joining us. Panelists, viewers,
and the audience, we're going to take a very short break at this point. Up next, we tackle
the testy subject of greed, individual greed, corporate greed, even national greed. But
before that, let's take a look at another top rated Google moderator video as chosen
by you, the viewers.
Welcome back. Now, if there is to be any real momentum to come from the Climate Change Debate
it will require change: change in behavior, change in lifestyle, and as the next video
points out, possibly a change in human nature. Listen to this.
>> BJARNE: Hi. My name is Bjarne. I am from the Netherlands. First off, I have to say
that I'm really glad that finally something is happening, that people are taking action.
But what worries me is, what is exactly the underlying cause, the root cause of all that
is happening right now? Obviously, the environment is a huge problem we're facing, but it's not
the only problem right now. There's also a lot of economical and social problems, for
instance, on our planet. And to me, it seems that all these issues have an underlying factor,
namely our human greed or selfishness. And if that is the root cause of all that is happening
nowadays, then how are we going to tackle that? That is my question.
>> ANDERSON: That was his question, Bjarne, from the Netherlands. Thomas, there is no
shortage of passion among our contributors. What do you make, what do you do about the
fact that money remains the primary motivator for the broader society?
>> FRIEDMAN: You make it work for you, Becky. You know, there is only one thing as big as
Mother Nature and that's Father Greed. And the problem is Father Greed has really been
driving the extractive industries, the dirty fuels. And to me, the way you get big change
in the world is you get the big players to do the right thing for the wrong reasons.
All right, that's greed, alright. Get the companies who have been, you know, getting
rich doing the wrong things, incentivize companies to get rich doing the right things. That's
what gives you scale, General Electric, Wal-Mart, okay. Some of the biggest companies in America
today are finding a way to get rich doing the right things. Remember, pollution is waste,
and when you eliminate waste, you eliminate cost, profits go up, shareholders benefit.
That's a very powerful... >> ANDERSON: Daryl, do you see enough being
done? >> HANNAH: Well, in America we're so conditioned
to be consumers. I think it would be a great thing if we learn to be producers again, you
know. It seems our fatal flaw is this desire for instant gratification. And if we can,
you know, change our psyche and think of ourselves as producers, so that we can export green
technologies and be the leaders once again. >> ANDERSON: But this--because this is about
competition at the end of the day, isn't it? >> HANNAH: It can be.
>> LOMBORG: Well, listen. This would be wonderful if this was just going to work. But let's
just be honest, when you ask people, how much are they willing to pay for these things,
they're not willing to pay very much. So, it's fine to cut the first 5% and I totally
agree with Thom, that you can do. But you cannot fundamentally change the engine that's
brought growth for several centuries with just a flick of the hand and say all right
now, we're just going to attack these industries, because remember, it's not the industries
that are going to be paying, it's the consumers and they don't want that. What we need is
a candid technology that will drive us, unless we're just putting the cart in front of the
horse. >> ANDERSON: Yvo, you're shaking your head.
>> DE BOER: Well, I don't think it's fair to talk about a flick of the switch as though
all of this is going to happen to--have to happen by next Monday. This is a laborious
process and it--there are two sides to it. In India, there are 400 million people who
don't even have access to electricity. They can't switch off the light they haven't got,
and they are probably saying, "Get greedy now." So, how can you get people, these people,
to grow their lives, grow their economies in a way that is more sustainable? And the
other side of the equation is how can you get people that are wealthy, that are affluent
at the moment to live their lives in a much more sustainable way? And there, I think,
technology is critical and technology will only come if policies and prices drive that
into the market. >> ANDERSON: All right, well, let's talk about
next because we're going to get to the United States, a pivotal player in any Climate Change
conversation and a nation that prides itself on individual liberty. Sean's video, one of
the most highly viewed and top ranked according to the Google moderator, questions the validity
of a global carbon tax. Sean's question. >> SEAN: Howdy, YouTube. Howdy, world. My
name is Sean. I'm 29 years old. Everything that I've seen so far with your treaty deals
more on the level of the ordinary person and what they have to do to stop Global Warming.
And my question to you is why has it never been the giant corporations, who put these
chemicals into the atmosphere, who pollute the lakes and pollute the rivers and the air,
and from what we can even tell with global warming, especially since all these emails
just got exposed. Ten thousand of these emails plus exposed showing how they've been doctoring
their numbers, and we can see how they've been wording things certain ways to make it--to
make it appealable for their viewpoint. My question to you is why taxes are the answer.
That's my question. Why are taxes the answer, and why is it us the little guys have to pay
those? Thank you, Cop15. And thank you, everyone. God bless, and let's, you know, let's save
the earth. But, you know, I don't think you need the taxes to do it, so.
>> ANDERSON: Makes it pretty obvious. What he does and doesn't want there. Thomas.
>> FRIEDMAN: Well, what I'd say to Sean is if you don't think that your gasoline price
is being set by the world's biggest cartel for the last 35 years is in the tax, then
you're not paying attention, okay? So, if I want to put a tax on gasoline in America
to stimulate movements to smaller more fuel efficient cars, yeah, that's a tax, sure.
But I like my taxes to go to my treasury to pay for U.S. schools, U.S. hospitals, U.S.
roads, U.S. research. It's a little tick I have. I don't like my taxes to go to pay for
some of the most authoritarian regimes in the world, who have drawn a bull's-eye on
my back. So, if you don't think you're paying a tax already, you're not paying attention.
It's where the tax goes, to which treasury. >> ANDERSON: Hannah, you don't even buy a
carbon tax, do you? Why not when you hear what Thomas is saying?
>> LOMBORG: I would agree and every economist--climate economist would agree that we do need a carbon
tax, but we should just not fool ourselves, that's not enough to drive a revolution.
>> ANDERSON: That's a good start, surely, isn't it?
>> LOMBORG: It might actually fund the--fund for instance research and development, but
a $7 carbon tax, which is going to translate into $6 per gasoline, sorry, 6 cents per gallon
of gasoline, this is just not going to make it. Of course, if we really try hard, we might
actually see people switch off like Sean and say, "I'm not going to pay for that." And
so, what we do need, we're not going to get the huge carbon taxes that people would like
to see, what we will need is to get the better technology that will enable us to actually
have, for instance, electric cars or other things that don't pollute in the long run.
>> ANDERSON: Yvo, I know it's been a long couple of weeks--you're shaking your head
again on what Bjorn is saying, why? >> DE BOER: Well, I mean, if Bjorn is advocating
a tax, it's probably because he knows it's never going to happen, because there would
be massive resistance against it. I think that the video is absolutely right. It's a
matter of finding a mechanism that gets the big polluters to pay for polluting.
>> ANDERSON: What is that mechanism, though? >> DE BOER: Well, I think that is actually--I'm
not a great advocate of taxes, but I'm not an economist, and I do pay tax. I'm much more
an advocate of a Cap and Trade approach whereby you say to a company, "If you want to make
something for consumers, fine, but you're going to have to clean up your own mess after
you and buy the right to pollute." >> ANDERSON: We're going to take a very short
break. Stay with me. Audience, stick with us. Let's take that break. Up next, another
winner and a question from Pirate Steve. Now, you will not want to miss this, I promise
you. >> GARILAO: There are many ways to address
Climate Change, but concrete solutions must be blotted out.
>> ORIOSTE: It has been a week after typhoons Ondoy and Peping have struck Manila and other
areas in Luzon. Currently, the Philippine Government and the families affected are still
recovering from this calamity. The tropical typhoon Ondoy, which stormed us last September,
killed more than 300 residents, relocated thousands of families to safer places and
damaged millions of dollars of properties. Lessons can be learned from its natural impact.
Had a suitable preventive measure been placed during the Ondoy tragedy, catastrophic effects
could have been reduced. >> GARILAO: I am Paul Darwynn Garilao, a Filipino
environmental advocate from Hawaii. >> ORIOSTE: I'm Alfonso Orioste, an environmental
enthusiast from Manila. >> GARILAO: Wherever you are part of the world,
be it in a developed country... >> ORIOSTE: Or a developing country, let us
translate our small voices into actions... >> GARILAO: To reduce the impact of Climate
Change in our respective countries. >> GARILAO: There is no more time for finger
pointing. We should focus now on solution seeking.
>> ORIOSTE: And implement protocols that will protect us from the detrimental threats of
Climate Change. >> ANDERSON: And that video from our second
set of winners, Alfonso and Paul, were actually among the first people to submit a video onto
our YouTube site. And according to you, the viewers, one of the best, so thank you, both,
very much.
Well, our next submission is also from the Philippines. Paula has a question and it deals
with a certain eco unfriendly material. >> KHO: Good day. This is Paula Regina Kho,
a college student and an environment advocate from Manila, Philippines. Since remarkable
effects start from small beginnings, and Styrofoam products are known to cause long term detrimental
effects on the environment, I'd like to ask our global leaders if they are willing to
take actions against the use of such materials, and if they are, what particular actions or
sets are they going to initiate regarding this matter? Thank you.
>> ANDERSON: And perhaps, we should be asking ourselves, what sort of decisions can we make
in our everyday lives. I know you've made many.
>> HANNAH: I think everybody needs to do their part, and I think probably the best way is
to really look at your own lifestyle and try to live by example. And I think that is the
most compelling thing that anybody can do. >> ANDERSON: What have you been doing? Talk
us through what you've done in the past. >> HANNAH: I don't use petroleum. For one
thing, I haven't used petroleum for a number of years. I make sure that my--that my fuel
is all made from responsible resources as well: waste grease and things like that. I've
been on solar power for about 19 years now. I think we should put solar panels on the
White House, you know, start setting an example, right in our seat of government. I have, you
know, grown a lot of my own food, gray water systems, composting toilets, the whole thing,
you know. >> ANDERSON: Our next video comes to us from
Pirate Steve in the U.K., and brace yourself for this.
>> STEVE: Hi. I'm Steve from the U.K. And here's my video about Climate Change and how
we can all help and hopefully get a message across to the big government official world
leader people and see what they have to say about it all because they're the ones flying
around leaving carbon footprints. What's that all about? Why don't use the Internet? We
are not safe in [INDISTINCT] travel. They won't be spending all of our tax payers' money
flying around all day [INDISTINCT], would they? I hope you enjoy the video. Does climate
change affect you or me? Polar ice caps melting and the rising of the sea. I don't want the
next generation to see the earth die, and to look up in the air and see no birds fly.
Leaders of our world, listen to what I have to say, you drive around in your fancy cars
and go flying everywhere, living carbon footprints high up in the air. It's one ball for you
and one ball for us, you should practice what you preach and stop annoying all of us. This
is what it's all about, saving the environment and everything. Look at this awesome tree,
the birds in the air, the fishes in the sea, all together, one, two, three. I don't know.
I was trying to make it rhyme, but it didn't really work. But, yeah, together we could
beat Climate Change. Peace, love, unity, respect. >> ANDERSON: Brilliantly done. Well, creative,
some might say a little odd, of course, but he has got a point there. The idea of the
CNN YouTube Debate was to give people a voice and there are millions of people around the
world who feel disenfranchised. So, to borrow his line, how do we make this real? Yvo, you've
been called the Flying Dutchman. You've been around the world a number of times over the
past few years, banging the environmental dramas it were. Since we've been around here
in Copenhagen, and there has been an awful lot of people in this building. There are
an awful lot of people outside. And thus, you simply can't get in. And then, there are
millions of people who simply aren't getting their voices heard, what's going on?
>> DE BOER: Well, just this week alone, I think I've received about 2 million signatures
of people that feel something needs to be happening here. And you're right, there is
a huge growing consensus out there that finally leaders need to do something here. And I think
that that is--that voice is really important. One of the first conversations I had with
an Indian minister of environment, who said, "You know, the people that elected me aren't
worried about Climate Change. They're worried about where their next meal is going to come
from." So, for me to be brave on Climate Change, they need to understand that this is an issue.
And that is where the expression of public opinion is so important.
>> ANDERSON: Bjorn. >> LOMBORG: Well, fundamentally, I think Yvo
has the right point in saying, we also need to recognize that three quarters of this planet
lacks the very basic necessities. I mean, my God, they're living in the medieval world
in many ways. Suddenly, the only way we can understand that they lack basic amenities
like, clean drinking water, sanitation, easily curable infectious diseases, no education,
all these things. And so, we got to keep asking ourselves, are we looking in the right direction
if we're talking about cutting carbon emission as a way to help them? This doesn't mean that
we shouldn't also fix climate change, but we should be very mindful of the fact that
whenever we spend money on climate change, of course, we end up not spending it on other
areas, and we saw that... >> FRIEDMAN: That very much depends, because
if you invest in mitigating climate change and you drive the price of distributed solar
energy down, distributive wind power down, every problem beyond referred to is an energy
problem. A school that has no light, that's an energy problem. A clinic in a remote, you
know, part of Africa that doesn't have the capacity to refrigerate medicine, that's an
energy problem. These are all energy problems. And if we, the developed country, take the
lead in driving down the cost of low cost distributed energy, we are solving both problems.
>> ANDERSON: I am hearing what you're saying. Guys, hang on a minute there, guys, because
Steve's point was simply this, people feel disenfranchise, how do we get them more involved?
There are politicians and negotiators in this building this week, but there weren't an awful
lot of people. Thom? >> FRIEDMAN: Well, you know, this is a uniquely
difficult leadership problem. We're trying to mitigate a gas you can't see, touch, or
smell that will probably or likely affect our children and unborn grandchildren, very
hard for politicians to respond to that. If people say, "We need better leaders," we also
need better citizens. How did we get civil rights in America? How did we get women's
rights in America? Millions of people take to the streets, politicians espied them and
said, "I must respond." Well, we need millions of people to take to the streets to say, "I
want a carbon tax. I want Cap and Trade." >> LOMBORG: We want better citizens? I would
assume that we actually want to make sure that we listen to the problems people actually
have. I'm happy that we're worried about Global Warming.
>> FRIEDMAN: Disease is not a problem? No, that's...
>> ANDERSON: Let him finish. Let him finish. >> LOMBORG: We are not listening to that issue
here. You're essentially saying we should have people who are much more worried about
energy, who's much more worried about Global Warming. I understand that three quarters
of this planet is much more worried about next week.
>> FRIEDMAN: Yeah, but you get through next week by having cheap power, okay? You don't
just get through next week just by saying, "I need to get through next week."
>>LOMBORG: 1.5 billion people don't even have energy.
>> FRIEDMAN: I know. And then, how do we get it to them? We get it to them by getting the...
>> ANDERSON: There are two more voices here. >> HANNAH: There already is a--I think there
already is a huge building global movement to a demand energy justice, but I don't understand
how we get leaders not to take care of special interest needs and to really take care, look
after people and all other species and all other forms of life.
>> ANDERSON: Can you answer that? Do you have an answer for that?
>> DE BOER: Well, no, but I know--you know what the one thing that every leader needs?
Followers. >> ANDERSON: Uh-huh.
>> DE BOER: Without followers, you can't be a leader. And I think that what the leaders
coming to this conference need to know and it goes to the disenfranchised point, they
need to know that people are behind them. They need to know that they have backing to
be brave here. >> HANNAH: There were 100,000 people in the
streets just the other day with mamas, with babies and strollers and everything demanding
Climate Justice. >> ANDERSON: And with that, we're going to
have to take a very short break. Hold on, guys. Still at, where are we heading and what
do we do? That is up for debate. First, we have a message from action superstar, Jet
Li. >> LI: Citizen of the world, we need to do
something to protect earth. We cannot just give the money to next generation, we need
to work together. Billions and billions of people, everybody do a little bit to protect
our family. Who is our family? Of course, it's the earth. I'm waiting for you.
>> Hey world leaders listen to me. We got to stop cutting down the rain forest trees.
Trees [INDISTINCT] CO2 will give us our share. If we cut them all down, it's bye-bye polar
bear. >> Hey world leaders, listen to me. It's time
to get tough with problems in industry. The green house gases there producing, we urgently
reducing. There's no debate. This is just how you can change the way they operate.
>> Hey world leaders, listen to me. I'm only a kid, but as you can see, the weather is
going weird, the hurricanes keep coming, the rain keeps pouring, and there's lots of flooding.
>> Hey world people, listen to us. Climate Change is happening, then we got to make a
fuss. So make a start and play your part. The Climate revolution. Peace out, world.
>> ANDERSON: Absolutely fantastic. We've got one final question coming from Jacob in Malaysia.
Today like him, it is short and it is sweet. >> JACOB: Hi. My name is Jacob Man [PH]. I'm
12 years old and I'm currently living in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. And I just want to know
what you planned on leaving for my generation? >> ANDERSON: Yvo.
>> DE BOER: I hope a runaway issue under control. I hope that what we will see here in Copenhagen
is the beginning to not only get green house gas emissions under control, but also help,
especially developing countries, deal with the inevitable impacts of Climate Change.
So, I would want to walk away from here with a radical turning point.
>> ANDERSON: Bjorn. >> LOMBORG: Well, I'd like to have us tackle
Global Warming, but unlike the last 18 years where it hasn't worked, actually smartly by
investing research and development to green energy. But also remember, all the other problems
we want to do, because if we just tackle Global Warming, we're leaving that guy pretty short
changed. >> ANDERSON: We asked the audience in the
advertising break what they would want to ask of you guys, limiting population growth,
where does this fit in to all of these? Thomas. >> FRIEDMAN: What my own view on that is that,
obviously, we're going to go from 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion according to the U.N. projections
and that's really going to stress everything. I don't feel like I have the right to tell
anyone how many kids are they--should or should not have, but what I do feel is, coming from
a rich developed country, the United States of America, I have an obligation to make sure
every person on this planet who wants it, has the technology and education to do family
planning. I think that's a moral obligation of my Government.
>> ANDERSON: You were just back from Africa. I know. I'm hot off the plane of the red-eyes
coming to this conference. What about funding for vulnerable countries going forward? And
does it worry you that funding through Climate Change policy might actually distract from
other aid that has been going in, or is sorely needed?
>> HANNAH: I worry about where that funding might be directed. I've heard of an initiative
that's moving forward, called RED that could potentially help preserve forest in some developing
countries. On the other hand, it might not predict--it might violate indigenous people's
rights, people who live in the forest that might also--that have some confusion between
plantations versus actual ecosystems and... >> ANDERSON: So, you're concerned?
>> HANNAH: I'm concerned about the, where these moneys are going and how they're going
to be allocated. >> ANDERSON: Thom.
>> FRIEDMAN: It is a very important point. You're saying if it goes from one central
bank to the other and then works its way down to the forest, that's another thing, but what
you see now, I was just in Amazon in Brazil and, you know, Brazil is really building a
system based on local governors, local entrepreneurs, and local indigenous people, that this money
if properly channeled, and properly observed, I think could have a big effect in saving
the forest. > ANDERSON: You've been running this for some
years now, are you optimistic or pessimistic, Yvo?
>> DE BOER: I am optimistic. I mean you talked earlier about disenfranchisement, I think
that it's clear that millions of people around the world really want to see this succeed.
I think the leaders are beginning to listen and I think it has to happen.
>> ANDERSON: The past hour has given you just a snapshot of the views and questions from
the global audience. I hope you feel we've given you an opportunity to raise you voice.
Let's keep that global conversation going. Remember, it is your voice that matters. Thank
you to our panel for taking the time to answer those questions. I'm Becky Anderson from Copenhagen.
Goodbye. >>
CNN YouTube Debate on Climate Change, in association with Siemens.
[END]