In a world where “decarbonization” dominates political and economic discourse, an upcoming debate promises to question whether ambitious targets to reduce carbon emissions justify the huge economic, social and technological price tags they attach. This critical discussion will bring together leading experts in atmospheric science, economics and energy policy, creating a forum to explore the contentious trade-offs inherent in climate change mitigation strategies.
expert panel
The debate featured four distinguished speakers:
- Kerry Emanuel: As professor emeritus of atmospheric science at MIT, Emanuel has a deep understanding of climate dynamics and may argue for the scientific necessity of decarbonization.
- Robert Pindyk: Pindyk, an economist at the MIT Sloan School of Management, critically examines uncertainty in climate models and their application to policy decisions. He will look at the debate from an economic perspective.
- Steven Queen: A senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Kunin is known for his skepticism of mainstream climate narratives and for highlighting the uncertainties in climate data and models.
- Mark Mills: Mills, executive director of the National Center for Energy Analysis, has frequently criticized the feasibility of transitioning to a “net-zero” energy future, emphasizing the material and energy needs of renewable technologies.
host
John Tomasi, president of the College of Heretics, will officiate. Tomasi’s leadership in promoting open, critical discourse ensures that debates avoid echo chambers and instead require participants to rigorously defend their positions.
when and where
- date: Today, Thursday, November 14th
- time: 7:00 pm
- Place: MIT Huang Auditorium (E51-115)
- Admission: Free, but registration is encouraged.
- online
For those unable to attend in person, the event will be livestreamed on YouTube (@MITFreespeech).
Why this debate matters
“Is decarbonization worth the cost?” This topic is arguably one of the most pressing topics of our time. As the global push for net-zero emissions becomes controversial, the policies set today will shape economic structures, technological innovation and social norms for decades to come. However, questions remain about cost-benefit calculations:
- Economic trade-offs: Decarbonization requires unprecedented investment in regenerative infrastructure, energy storage and grid modernization. Do these investments generate tangible benefits, or do they place a disproportionate burden on certain sectors or populations?
- scientific uncertainty: How reliable are the climate models supporting decarbonization policies? Skeptics like Steven Kunin argue that these models fail to capture the complexity of the climate system and exaggerate risks.
- energy reality: Mark Mills often points out the physical limitations of renewable technologies, including the need for rare earth materials and the environmental costs of mining. Amid the “green energy” craze, are these challenges being adequately addressed?
- Alternative method: Can adaptation strategies offer a more cost-effective path forward than active mitigation measures?
a critical opportunity
This debate is more than an academic exercise. This is an opportunity to review policies that have far-reaching implications for economic stability, technological progress and the global economy. Decarbonization may be a belief for many, but belief is no substitute for rigorous analysis.
Attending or watching this debate will allow you to engage with arguments from both sides and thereby develop a more informed view of one of the most important issues of our time.
Don't miss this opportunity to hear how some of the brightest minds are tackling one of the toughest problems in modern policymaking.
For more details and to register, scan the QR code on the event flyer or visit the MIT Open Discourse website.
Relevant
