6 ms·

>Yes. In a sane democratic system, I would expect government to finance these projects. And it does. Have you ever tried to get something funded by a governmen

>Yes. In a sane democratic system, I would expect government to finance these projects. And it does. Have you ever tried to get something funded by a government program ? I would bet 10/10 times that a competent leader (which Gates is beyond a doubt) is going to be more efficient at executing on a goal than a bureaucratic system passed down between governments, parties and agency interpretations. And that's assuming that money gets allocated towards the said goals, so much stuff gets funded that very few tax payers would support as a result of lobbying (which is always going to happen when you funnel that much money through politicians) and even if it gets allocated to the desired goals it then goes through contractors with connections that add a government markup + the overhead of keeping up with the bureaucracy. Just having someone as competent and connected as Gates tackling that problem is a huge value add, getting that calibre of a person through a government system is very unlikely.

mrpopo 7y ago
> a competent leader (which Gates is beyond a doubt) is going to be more efficient at executing on a goal ... Bill Gates was perhaps a competent businessman, exploiting his powerful network, intellectual property laws, destroying the competition, lobbying. He was ruthless. It doesn't make him competent at everything. Especially something like climate change that requires a global policy of reduction in energy use (anyone who tells you climate change will be solved by innovation, energy efficiency, solar panels and fusion alone is lying to you.) Bill Gates invested billions on nuclear energy innovation for a decade now. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/12/bill.gates.clean.energy/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/12/bill.gates.clean.ener... What are the results? The world's energy use kept piling up, instead of being replaced by clean energy sources. Any decrease in GHG emissions in the developed world is a consequence of globalization and automation. It's just accounting. The GHG emissions have increased elsewhere. Climate change is a governmental problem that requires investing in energy use reduction, insulation, public transportation, and the like. The solutions are there and have been for decades, but won't be implemented because we keep listening to tech evangelists.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > Climate change is a governmental problem that requires investing in energy use reduction, insulation, public transportation, and the like. It's not a governmental problem, it's an inter-governmental problem. Don't forget that governments are in competition with each other as much as your local grocery store is in competition with a Wallmart on the next street. There are two strategies to tackling global warming that I firmly believe are completely ineffective: hoping for individuals to suddenly reduce their consumption, and hoping for politicians to swiftly pass necessary regulations in their countries. Both are essentially the same: asking someone to make sacrifice and suffer immediate negative consequences, and paying them with hope that others will volunteer to do the same (instead of doing nothing and enjoying the relative increase in status/wealth/power). The reason to invest in research and new technology is because it gives a way out of the conundrum. Technology gives additional options to politicians. For instance, where no sane policymaker would mandate immediate restrictions on energy production in a nation powered by fossil fuels, dropping prices and increasing availability of solar PVs makes it easy to start funneling money into renewables, which a) makes the politician look progressive/pro-eco, b) allows to decarbonize energy production without reducing it and making the nation less competitive. So basically - yes, the governments are ones with the power and means to solve this problem. But they won't just go and do it, for the same reason companies on the market don't just agree to do something together. If you want to push them to change, you have to go along with the incentive structures that govern the nations.
  - mrpopo 7y ago
    > The reason to invest in research and new technology is because it gives a way out of the conundrum. No, it doesn't. At least not by itself. We need a combined response of energy savings, energy efficiency, behavioral changes and green tech to have a chance to mitigate climate change effects. Anyone who believes into innovation to get us out of this mess didn't make the math. Take aviation. The aviation industry currently burns 10% of the world's crude oil production. The current front-leader innovative "way out" is biofuels. Except if we used 100% of the world's agricultural surface to produce biofuel, we could only replace 25% of the world's oil consumption. Hard to imagine a growing aviation industry with that kind of constraint. I'm OK with biofuels powering airplanes, but only if we collectively accept flying maybe 10 times less. The same kind of math would apply with hydrogen, etc. There is no exception.

mrpopo 7y ago

> a competent leader (which Gates is beyond a doubt) is going to be more efficient at executing on a goal ... Bill Gates was perhaps a competent businessman, exploiting his powerful network, intellectual property laws, destroying the competition, lobbying. He was ruthless. It doesn't make him competent at everything. Especially something like climate change that requires a global policy of reduction in energy use (anyone who tells you climate change will be solved by innovation, energy efficiency, solar panels and fusion alone is lying to you.) Bill Gates invested billions on nuclear energy innovation for a decade now. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/12/bill.gates.clean.energy/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/12/bill.gates.clean.ener... What are the results? The world's energy use kept piling up, instead of being replaced by clean energy sources. Any decrease in GHG emissions in the developed world is a consequence of globalization and automation. It's just accounting. The GHG emissions have increased elsewhere. Climate change is a governmental problem that requires investing in energy use reduction, insulation, public transportation, and the like. The solutions are there and have been for decades, but won't be implemented because we keep listening to tech evangelists.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> Climate change is a governmental problem that requires investing in energy use reduction, insulation, public transportation, and the like. It's not a governmental problem, it's an inter-governmental problem. Don't forget that governments are in competition with each other as much as your local grocery store is in competition with a Wallmart on the next street. There are two strategies to tackling global warming that I firmly believe are completely ineffective: hoping for individuals to suddenly reduce their consumption, and hoping for politicians to swiftly pass necessary regulations in their countries. Both are essentially the same: asking someone to make sacrifice and suffer immediate negative consequences, and paying them with hope that others will volunteer to do the same (instead of doing nothing and enjoying the relative increase in status/wealth/power). The reason to invest in research and new technology is because it gives a way out of the conundrum. Technology gives additional options to politicians. For instance, where no sane policymaker would mandate immediate restrictions on energy production in a nation powered by fossil fuels, dropping prices and increasing availability of solar PVs makes it easy to start funneling money into renewables, which a) makes the politician look progressive/pro-eco, b) allows to decarbonize energy production without reducing it and making the nation less competitive. So basically - yes, the governments are ones with the power and means to solve this problem. But they won't just go and do it, for the same reason companies on the market don't just agree to do something together. If you want to push them to change, you have to go along with the incentive structures that govern the nations.
- mrpopo 7y ago
  > The reason to invest in research and new technology is because it gives a way out of the conundrum. No, it doesn't. At least not by itself. We need a combined response of energy savings, energy efficiency, behavioral changes and green tech to have a chance to mitigate climate change effects. Anyone who believes into innovation to get us out of this mess didn't make the math. Take aviation. The aviation industry currently burns 10% of the world's crude oil production. The current front-leader innovative "way out" is biofuels. Except if we used 100% of the world's agricultural surface to produce biofuel, we could only replace 25% of the world's oil consumption. Hard to imagine a growing aviation industry with that kind of constraint. I'm OK with biofuels powering airplanes, but only if we collectively accept flying maybe 10 times less. The same kind of math would apply with hydrogen, etc. There is no exception.