Comments on: Bill Gates is very wrong

By: Ethics of Climate – Talk by Ray Pierrehumbert | Serendipity

Ethics of Climate – Talk by Ray Pierrehumbert | Serendipity — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:07:08 +0000

[...] while China still has a carbon balance (it’s used up less). In other words, in terms of the thing that matters most, cumulative emissions, the US has used up more than it’s fair share of a valuable [...]

By: steve

steve — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:15:13 +0000

Ian: my piece was in response to his original blog post rather than the TED Talk. He originally titled his post “why we need innovation, not insulation”, and later (presumably on advice from his staffers) changed it to “why we need innovation as well as insulation”. There are plenty of roadmaps for how we get there with current technologies – the challenge is investment and deployment, not innovation. Whenever I hear people like Gates pin solutions to climate change on some future technological breakthrough, I’m reminded of people who rack up debt on their credit cards in the hope that they’ll one day win the lottery. We’re already paying compound interest, while we already have available the tools to dramatically reduce the debt.

We’ll make technological breakthroughs in the future with or without Gates’ help. But none of that is particularly relevant to what we need to be doing today.

By: Ian Lowe

Ian Lowe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:02:43 +0000

So, here’s the issue I have with your read on Bill Gates talk..

Through his work in the Foundation, he has repeatedly said that they will not contribute to projects that are “me too” efforts, or where there is already action underway. He considers it his moral duty to apply his considerable resources in arenas where people who don’t have the GDP of a small nation on tap simply cannot go.

I have watched the talk twice now, and I simply do not see what you see – I think that in this case, everyone is talking about reduction of emissions, and nobody is talking about how to get more energy than we have at present.

Energy is the magic bullet here – if we have abundant, reliable, clean energy then a whole range of applications open up – recycling materials like glass and metals uses a lot of energy. if we have lots of clean energy, electric cars, vans, buses become a no brainer.

Bill Gates is asking the question that needs to be asked – where is the replacement for oil energy coming from?

Far too many people in the green lobby are viewing Peak Oil as the end of inevitable end of industrial civilisation (and it seems that some of them are viewing this with a certain relish), when in reality, peak oil does not have to be any more significant a shift for us than Peak Hay, or Peak Horse.

When we have scientists telling us that TWRs could provide energy for the whole world at current US levels of usage, for close on a Millenia using only the nuclear waste currently stockpiled in the USA – and this is before we even look at Thorium – then it needs to be taken seriously.

Bill Gates is opening up a wing of the debate which has been sorely neglected. I really don’t think he is suggesting that the other stuff shouldn’t happen as well.

By: Bathtubs, waistlines, and credit cards « Catenary

Bathtubs, waistlines, and credit cards « Catenary — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 01:16:25 +0000

[...] For the mathematically inclined, this is easy to visualize as a calculus problem: what matters is not the end point of our greenhouse gas emissions curve at some particular year, but the area under that curve. In other words, it’s not our emissions any given year that matter, but our cumulative emissions over history. This is what is unintuitive about the problem; even Bill Gates doesn’t seem to get it. [...]

By: David Roberts

David Roberts — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:23:11 +0000

Steve, great post. I critiqued Gates from another angle here:

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-02-17-why-bill-gates-is-wrong-on-energy-and-climate

By: Why we need to cut emissions today, not tomorrow » Mind of Dan

Why we need to cut emissions today, not tomorrow » Mind of Dan — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:07:39 +0000

[...] Steve Easterbrook explains why clearly and succinctly: [...]

By: Andy S

Andy S — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:54:21 +0000

“he pours scorn on energy conservation efforts, arguing (effectively) that they are a waste of time.”

A niggling point: you might be better off saying “…arguing, in effect, that..” rather than having a reader assume that you meant that Gates was arguing effectively.

[Fixed. Many thanks! - Steve]

By: Richard Pauli

Richard Pauli — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 03:53:21 +0000

Most disturbing is to observe that Gates appears to be guided by marketing principles, not valid scientific advice. Asking for innovation without a grounding in the science is both deluded and risky.

The only compliment I can offer Gates is to say thanks for starting to look at the issue.

By: buzz

buzz — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:08:27 +0000

Bill Gates is very wrong | Serendipity …

[...] even if we could turn off emissions today, the earth would keep warming for decades, and wouldn’t cool off again for centuries. It’s going to be tough adapting to the warming we’re already committed to. For every additional year that we fail to g…

By: George Crews

George Crews — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:30:14 +0000

Hi Steve,

A good point, but Bill’s argument justifying innovation is wrong for another reason. There are simpler ways of understanding the climate change issue other than forcing it into a cumulative emissions framework.

The suitability of the environment is not a solely or even mostly a function of temperature. And the temperature is not nearly determined solely by CO2 emissions. Therefore, how could CO2 emissions be the determining parameter in either the probability or the magnitude of any climate insufficiency?

A better parameter? Why, population, of course.

George

["forcing it into a cumulative emissions framework"??? Cumulative emissions (i.e. atmospheric concentrations) of GHGs *is* the problem. Your reasoning seems to be backwards - Steve]