On Gates and Climate
Last week, Bill Gates published a statement on climate change and the broad direction of national and global policies aimed at improving the lives of people around the world. It was timed to affect the imminent annual global meeting on our dire environment; a fraught process that already faces fresh headwinds due to political retrenchment by the US and others. While I only have a small fraction of Gates' readership (and a much, much smaller fraction of his resources to apply towards these concerns), I think it’s important to address what he said (and not what politicians and the mass media said about what he said). Here are his three punchlines:
I cannot, of course, challenge any of the facts that he cites. But there’s a lot of opinion mixed in with his facts and no small amount of selectivity in the facts he chooses to highlight. My concerns are more with his assumptions and the way he frames the issues than his particular positions.
Concern #1 –Short-term perspective: It takes a long time to alter planetary climate. We humans have been at it aggressively for several hundred years, particularly in the last century. It’s virtually impossible to see how we could get back to 1950 climate levels within a century and ecosystems around the world (e.g. icecaps or coral reefs) may never recover even if temperature increases are reversed.
Gates is concerned about people living now, especially those in poverty or subsistence lifestyles; but they, and the rest of us, will be living for a while and will do so increasingly in a world adversely affected by climate change. We also need to consider those who might live on this planet later in this century or the next, with climates running 2-3º (best case) above “normal.” In other words, if we don’t start fixing it now, it will never get better. Deterring action, as Gates implicitly argues for, will mean more folks will have problems longer.
Concern #2—Naivité about how public awareness and public policy change over time: The modern environmental movement is about 50-70 years old. It was pretty much on the fringe for the first several decades and has only been a serious force domestically and globally for 30-40 years. As the science has gotten better, the public debates have gotten more serious and meaningful, but despite the efforts of the more outré groups (e.g. Greenpeace, Climate Extinction), most folks don’t pay attention and the ranks of climate deniers (not least the current Administration) remain robust. Until we start to do enough, we need to continue to make noise and push changes in policy and behavior.
Gates is aware that his statement will be used against climate activists (the orange-haired tweeter said the next day that Gates statement means that: “I won the war against the climate change hoax.”) I have to ask whether fortifying an administration that has little interest in either climate issues or improving the health and well-being of the millions of folks that Gates claims are his priority was useful.
In addition, as a practical matter, climate impacts on those individuals and countries which have more resources to do something about it are more likely to garner attention and resources that benefit everyone, even in the face of inadequate focus on improving global health and welfare generally.
Concern #3 –A false dichotomy about the choices we face: Gates says we should measure our policies and allocate resources against a broad standard of improving “human welfare,” rather than “partitioning it off for particular causes.” Well, of course. But that begs the question of how best to achieve improved human welfare and then how to allocate resources to each effort. Global health and welfare are underfunded. Climate is underfunded. Pitting them against each other isn’t helpful, nor does it reflect the underlying problem of economic inequality (at both the individual and global levels).
Concern #4—Techno/capitalistic-optimism: Improvements in technology, whether in health, agriculture, or energy production and usage will make things better across the board to be sure. Real progress is being made. But changing attitudes and behaviors, especially about humans exploiting the planet and pretending that there are no consequences, remain the necessary root source of real solutions. Eliminating malaria and generating food surpluses will increase that exploitation, especially given the population projections for Africa. Smart investors will certainly make money along the way, but this is a different kind of challenge for humanity and doubling-down on modernity will end poorly.
In sum, however accurate his facts and well-meaning his intent, Gates’ memo is politically ham-handed, unlikely to increase the resource allocation to the good causes he supports, and likely to make it easy for climate deniers and climate ignorers to blithely carry on. Not good.
Last week, Bill Gates published a statement on climate change and the broad direction of national and global policies aimed at improving the lives of people around the world. It was timed to affect the imminent annual global meeting on our dire environment; a fraught process that already faces fresh headwinds due to political retrenchment by the US and others. While I only have a small fraction of Gates' readership (and a much, much smaller fraction of his resources to apply towards these concerns), I think it’s important to address what he said (and not what politicians and the mass media said about what he said). Here are his three punchlines:
- “Climate change is a serious problem, but it will not be the end of civilization.” [Well, that’s nice to know. Nuclear war, biological agents (intentional or accidental) haven’t ended civilization either …yet. By the same token, malaria and starvation in poor tropical countries won’t end civilization either. Climate change will, however, likely kill millions in the meantime and vastly disrupt the lives of virtually everyone else. For the former, their civilization WILL end; and for those whose lives will only be marginally affected (i.e. the well-off), what kind of “civilization,” morally, will be left?]
- “Temperature is not the best way to measure our progress on climate.” [Even if this is true, it’s a simple and easy to understand standard for the millions of folks who will need to pay attention. Public support and engagement is an essential part of addressing the problem.]
- “Health and prosperity are the best defense against climate change.” [Dead corals and other collapsing ecosystems may not find much protection here. Even if this were just about humans, many climate impacts don’t care about net worth and nutrition. The need for improved global health stands on its own. Figuring out what prosperity means on a global basis is another issue altogether; getting everyone in the Global South up to OECD levels of living standards would be equitable, but would vastly increase the drain on the planet.]
I cannot, of course, challenge any of the facts that he cites. But there’s a lot of opinion mixed in with his facts and no small amount of selectivity in the facts he chooses to highlight. My concerns are more with his assumptions and the way he frames the issues than his particular positions.
Concern #1 –Short-term perspective: It takes a long time to alter planetary climate. We humans have been at it aggressively for several hundred years, particularly in the last century. It’s virtually impossible to see how we could get back to 1950 climate levels within a century and ecosystems around the world (e.g. icecaps or coral reefs) may never recover even if temperature increases are reversed.
Gates is concerned about people living now, especially those in poverty or subsistence lifestyles; but they, and the rest of us, will be living for a while and will do so increasingly in a world adversely affected by climate change. We also need to consider those who might live on this planet later in this century or the next, with climates running 2-3º (best case) above “normal.” In other words, if we don’t start fixing it now, it will never get better. Deterring action, as Gates implicitly argues for, will mean more folks will have problems longer.
Concern #2—Naivité about how public awareness and public policy change over time: The modern environmental movement is about 50-70 years old. It was pretty much on the fringe for the first several decades and has only been a serious force domestically and globally for 30-40 years. As the science has gotten better, the public debates have gotten more serious and meaningful, but despite the efforts of the more outré groups (e.g. Greenpeace, Climate Extinction), most folks don’t pay attention and the ranks of climate deniers (not least the current Administration) remain robust. Until we start to do enough, we need to continue to make noise and push changes in policy and behavior.
Gates is aware that his statement will be used against climate activists (the orange-haired tweeter said the next day that Gates statement means that: “I won the war against the climate change hoax.”) I have to ask whether fortifying an administration that has little interest in either climate issues or improving the health and well-being of the millions of folks that Gates claims are his priority was useful.
In addition, as a practical matter, climate impacts on those individuals and countries which have more resources to do something about it are more likely to garner attention and resources that benefit everyone, even in the face of inadequate focus on improving global health and welfare generally.
Concern #3 –A false dichotomy about the choices we face: Gates says we should measure our policies and allocate resources against a broad standard of improving “human welfare,” rather than “partitioning it off for particular causes.” Well, of course. But that begs the question of how best to achieve improved human welfare and then how to allocate resources to each effort. Global health and welfare are underfunded. Climate is underfunded. Pitting them against each other isn’t helpful, nor does it reflect the underlying problem of economic inequality (at both the individual and global levels).
Concern #4—Techno/capitalistic-optimism: Improvements in technology, whether in health, agriculture, or energy production and usage will make things better across the board to be sure. Real progress is being made. But changing attitudes and behaviors, especially about humans exploiting the planet and pretending that there are no consequences, remain the necessary root source of real solutions. Eliminating malaria and generating food surpluses will increase that exploitation, especially given the population projections for Africa. Smart investors will certainly make money along the way, but this is a different kind of challenge for humanity and doubling-down on modernity will end poorly.
In sum, however accurate his facts and well-meaning his intent, Gates’ memo is politically ham-handed, unlikely to increase the resource allocation to the good causes he supports, and likely to make it easy for climate deniers and climate ignorers to blithely carry on. Not good.
RSS Feed