Bill Gates about turn on Climate Change

Given that humans are currently living everywhere from the Sahara desert to the high arctic, it's safe to say that climate change won't wipe out humanity.

But that's a really bad excuse to not do anything.  There are already large parts of the planet that are barely habitable.

There are hot dry areas that are so hot and so dry that if things get any hotter then crops will all fail and livestock will die.  There are hot humid places that are only barely tolerable by humans.  Add a couple more degrees C and they will effectively become uninhabitable without constant air conditioning.  If your car breaks down and the air conditioning stops, then you will die if you try to walk to the nearest town.

Things aren't all great in the arctic either.  Houses built on permafrost are subsiding as the ground thaws in summer.  The land turns into swamp.  Ice melting in Greenland is measured in gigatonnes, or cubic kilometers if you prefer.  If all that melts, then coastal cities will be underwater and island nations will disappear.  It won't suddenly all melt overnight, but if temperatures continue to rise, there will be nothing to stop it melting eventually.  Land and open sea absorb heat from the sun a lot easier than white ice.  So once it starts, it becomes self-reinforcing.

In the UK, we are fretting about tens of thousands of immigrants arriving on small boats.  What happens when that becomes hundreds of thousands or even millions, because we have destroyed the homes of so many people across the World?

We have a global alliance of people who are too greedy to change things, because fossil fuels make so much money, and intransigent people who don't want to change because they like the way things are.  And even though things are already changing, every change becomes the new norm after a few years.  It's the boiling frog thing (and frogs aren't actually stupid enough to stay in a pot of boiling water).

Plus, to get purely parochial, the change to the gulf stream will have a huge effect on the UK. Ok, it won't affect those living in Silicon Valley, that doesn't mean it's not a problem. 

And the big frustration, as you say Simon, is that all this is preventable. Fortunately today's engineers are working hard to address the issues, but it needs political will to support this.

For the engineering industry, investing in net zero is a win-win scenario. Keeps us gainfully employed and maintains a sustainable planet to live on.

not a climate emergency

I suppose a lot depends on what you think the reaction to the word "emergency" should be. In a domestic setting an "emergency" (e.g. something involving calling an ambulance) would typically mean dropping absolutely everything else - don't worry about eating, certainly no taking any breaks or going off shopping, just get on with addressing the one emergency task in hand. At A&E though the same emergency will elicit rather a different response - certainly it would be a high priority, but not at all to the exclusion of everything else - staff will still have breaks, the floors will still be cleaned, paperwork will still be done. In other-words things go on pretty much as normal, but perhaps with more emphasis of keeping a primary task at the front of your mind and making sure other things don't get in the way of that too much. I can't say what the people who invented the phase had in mind and how is should apply to organisations, but I might suspect something nearer the latter than the former.

In our case, it seems to me we can't just rely on the status quo ante at the default starting point for the future - times are changing and we need to work with those changes, we have practically no coal mines left, North Sea oil and gas is in terminal decline, nuclear has a very poor reputation amongst voters (who elect those who need to give permission for such things). Maybe the tech we're coming up with at the moment isn't the answer, but at least it's a start.

   - Andy.

It is interesting to read the full document and also to look behind what he has written. Bill Gates is certainly intelligent and is capable of analysing the data that is out there.

https://www.gatesnotes.com/home/home-page-topic/reader/three-tough-truths-about-climate

The three truths are:

1) Climate change is a serious problem, but it will not be the end of civilisation.

The doom mongers have been prophesying disaster for years and none of the predictions have come true. Most people are now just getting bored of the activists crying wolf. A new more rational approach is required.

2) Temperature is not the best way to measure our progress on climate.

Global average temperature is a very nebulous quantity to base vast investments on. People’s health and wellbeing is more important. The question behind this is what actually is global average temperature? How is it defined and how is it calibrated against ‘pre industrial’ temperatures.

3) Health and prosperity are the best defense against climate change.

“What happens to the number of projected deaths from climate change when you account for the expected economic growth of low-income countries over the rest of this century? The answer: It falls by more than 50 percent.”

Healthy people will survive and adapt. Disease kills far more than climate change or natural disasters.

He then proposes two priorities for COP 30:

1) Drive the Green Premium to zero.

The green solutions are currently not actually affordable. Can they ever be? The strike prices for wind are not coming down as shown by the recent capacity auctions. £44/MWh is a myth.

2) Be rigorous about measuring impact.

Don’t just follow the dogma do some calculations to see if changes are really beneficial. Is CCS really worth an extra 20% consumption of fuel?

Roger B said:

The green solutions are currently not actually affordable. Can they ever be? The strike prices for wind are not coming down as shown by the recent capacity auctions. £44/MWh is a myth.

That's definitely a myth.  Renewables keep coming down in price and are out-competing fossil fuels.  Renewables have now overtaken coal as the biggest source of electricity across the World https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2rz08en2po.

The US president is desperately trying to stop wind farms being built as they are destroying the coal industry that he keeps promoting.

Here is a recent article on the BBC regarding UK renewable prices:

www.bbc.com/.../cly8ynegwn4o

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This year, the maximum guaranteed price for offshore wind will be £113 per megawatt-hour, up from £102 in 2024

Floating offshore wind, which is a newer technology, is more expensive at £271/MWh, up from £245.

Onshore wind has seen a smaller rise from £89/MWh to £92 while the price for solar energy has come down to £75/MWh from £85/MWh.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I cannot find anything near £44/MWh. Please can you post some official figures showing current wind or solar PV generation costs under £50/MWh.

The BBC article you reference is based on this Ember report:

https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-electricity-mid-year-insights-2025/global-analysis/#renewables-overtake-coal-as-fossil-fuels-fall-slig

It applies to the first half of 2025 and includes Hydro and Bio generated electricity. The jury is out on the environmental impact of Hydro and Bio (Drax for example).

A quick search in the web brings up the following for Drax.

Drax power station primarily uses sustainable biomass, specifically compressed wood pellets, to generate electricity. It was converted from a coal-fired power station and is now the largest renewable generator in the UK, using wood as its main fuel. 

    Fuel source: The primary fuel is sustainably sourced wood pellets, which come from North America, the Baltic States, Brazil, and other sources.

Peronally I am not sure how people say Drax in the UK is sustainable or eco or any other term of GreenWash.  Its primary function is to burn stuff that is shipped in from abroad.

Yes, Drax is green wash but we need to keep it available to burn  paper, local wood, dry green waste and ALL plastics. We should never recycle plastics as new plastic is much cleaner and cheaper.  We must stop polluting the worlds oceans by sending it overseas to some third world country so we get a carbon credit. The cost of all the resorting 6% plastics and extra handling and transport costs are a total waste of money.  Install some chain grates at Drax to reclaim the energy with chimney scrubbers to remove any nasties is the way.

Climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels but 40% of these CO2 emissions are the result of the construction industries building new houses and infrastructure mostly in developing nations to accommodate their children.  If married couples only have 2 children then the happy children will inherit a home without having to cause a housing shortage. Extra kids will likely have to live in a slum.

Neither Jesus or later day prophet Mohammed advocated large families so it would be a good idea if the UN and other humanitarian agencies started assisted family planning clinics to encourage voluntary vasectomies, free contraceptives etc. 

Electrisation of cars will at best save only 1% of CO2 emissions.  

I totally understand the need for Drax and other such power stations.  It is the misrepresentation which I think is the issue by saying it is Green.  How can burning stuff be Green?  In the same way that the industry says remove gas and go electric or electrification is the way forward.  When the truth is only X % of electricity in the UK is made from Nuclear, solar, wind and wave.  They have no idea that Gas is used to prop up the National Grid.  I am fairly certain that the UK's Minister for Energy Michael Shanks doe not even know what CCGT is.  CCGT is Combined Cycle Gas Turbine, which is a highly efficient type of gas-fired power plant.

It's a pivot, based on Trump's driving of US policy in a contrarian direction.

If he (Gates) is getting no support (even active suppression of his prior lead idea), then a pivot to the 2nd most important activities is a reasonable alternative.

It's a 'pick your battles' strategy, not an admission of any sort of error.