Concordia Journal Home > Archives > January 14, 2010 issue >

ClassAction: Great climate debate comes to a head 

By Anna Sarkissian

As world leaders were jockeying for position prior to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December, students in an advanced geography course were prepping for a showdown of their own.

Debating Copenhagen, presented with support from the Geography Undergraduate Student Society, drew nearly 100 people to the 12th floor of the Hall Building for a wine and cheese debate.

“Relax, it’s the end of the semester,” said GUSS press liaison Chris Amyot, who was also one of the debaters. “We wanted to do this in a calm environment.”

Seven students in Damon Matthews’ 498C Climate Change course opted to organize the event and participate in the discussion instead of writing a final essay worth 30% of their grade.

“This isn’t an academic paper, but if anything you need a better grasp of the topic. You have to be aware of both sides of the argument,” Matthews said.

Students were judged based on the accuracy of their statements, how well they presented their case and on a final write-up summarizing their position.

The group met once a week starting mid-semester to brainstorm for ideas. They decided amongst themselves who would debate whom and on which topic. The questions were framed around issues likely to be raised in Copenhagen.

Moderator Tara Despault set the stage by providing background information about the 15th annual conference in Copenhagen and asked the audience, “How will Copenhagen succeed where Kyoto has failed?”

Kelly Nugent and Nick Matsumoto looked at whether limiting global warming to two degrees was a reasonable target. Matsumoto argued that we were already seeing devastating effects and two degrees was simply not enough.

“Science puts out worst-case scenarios so that we’re better prepared,” Nugent countered. “In the case of water shortage, isn’t it a result of poor management, like irrigation in the desert?”

Next up, Daniel Kielback and Jennifer Gagne focused on whether developing countries should adhere to emissions targets like developed countries. The Kyoto protocol did not include developing nations, which has been criticized by some climate activists.

“It’s not about who polluted in the past. It’s about who’s polluting now,” Gagne said. “India and China will soon eclipse the developed world in terms of emissions.”

Kielback pointed to the ethical, social and economic inequities between developed and developing nations.

“Countries need to be able to industrialize without emissions restrictions, just as we did. Once they’re stable, they can move toward greener technologies,” he said.

In the final round, Chris Amyot and Nicholas Taylor went head-to-head about whether climate accords were more successful than grassroots action.

Taylor said regional organizing is the way to go. “I see Copenhagen as a giant high-stakes poker match. We have no strong leadership,” he said.

Amyot maintained that international law can hold states responsible and provide a framework for emissions reduction.

Matthews chose this format because students can be entertaining and also meet academic requirements. In winter 2008, his class hosted a similar debate.

“The students also get the experience of organizing an event, which is an extremely important skill,” he said.