How to Avoid a Climate Disaster- wired interviewed interviewed Bill Gates about his new book
Here are the highlights:
Carbon remains cheaper as a source of energy because its negative impacts – or “externalities” – aren’t priced in. Governments subsidise fossil fuels because they are reliable and proven.
No, its fossil fuels that are more expensive without subsidies- trying to spread the lie.
While wealthy countries might be able to pay a premium for these zero carbon options, that isn’t currently possible for some fast-growing nations in Asia, Africa and South America. The green premium needs to be so low as to make sense to switch.
No, green is much cheaper for the developing world too.
While some advocates of change suggest that the target should be 2030, Gates believes that’s unrealistic –
Ridiculous fossil fuels are destroying the US economy in particular.
The fact that I’m running an open-source model to test whether these aggressive goals are achievable, it blows the mind – why am I funding this model for these electric grids, which is the most obvious thing to do when you look at climate change?
These goals of going green even by 2030 are obviously totally achievable but he even tries to throw shade over 2050- and its obviously not because he's just conservative its because obviously he does want a transition to green and is actively trying to prevent it.
Trying to slow it down is the same exact thing as trying to outright stop it.
But I would say, if you can get super-cheap green hydrogen, it sits in terms of the industrial economy at the peak. So, if you pencil in ridiculously low-cost hydrogen, then I can tell you how to make clean fertiliser and clean steel, and even clean aviation fuel.
Here is his shilling for the natural gas industry which he is surely invested in to a huge amount and pied pipered a lot of other people into with obvious disastrous consequences.
So everybody's getting together and talking about the short-term reductions, but the only areas you can make short-term reductions are electric cars and using solar and wind for electricity generation. That's less than 30 per cent of the game – 70 per cent is steel, cement, aviation, land use... People aren’t doing anything about those. If you want to get to a goal, you should start working on the hard things, not just on the easy things. I'm not saying the easy things are easy, they're just relatively easy.
Here he tries his usual tactic of trying to say only easy trivial stuff that isn't that impact-full like electric cars is being addressed and all the important stuff must go to his dog whistle hydrogen natural gas continuation of Enron.
Here are the highlights:
Carbon remains cheaper as a source of energy because its negative impacts – or “externalities” – aren’t priced in. Governments subsidise fossil fuels because they are reliable and proven.
No, its fossil fuels that are more expensive without subsidies- trying to spread the lie.
While wealthy countries might be able to pay a premium for these zero carbon options, that isn’t currently possible for some fast-growing nations in Asia, Africa and South America. The green premium needs to be so low as to make sense to switch.
No, green is much cheaper for the developing world too.
While some advocates of change suggest that the target should be 2030, Gates believes that’s unrealistic –
Ridiculous fossil fuels are destroying the US economy in particular.
The fact that I’m running an open-source model to test whether these aggressive goals are achievable, it blows the mind – why am I funding this model for these electric grids, which is the most obvious thing to do when you look at climate change?
These goals of going green even by 2030 are obviously totally achievable but he even tries to throw shade over 2050- and its obviously not because he's just conservative its because obviously he does want a transition to green and is actively trying to prevent it.
Trying to slow it down is the same exact thing as trying to outright stop it.
But I would say, if you can get super-cheap green hydrogen, it sits in terms of the industrial economy at the peak. So, if you pencil in ridiculously low-cost hydrogen, then I can tell you how to make clean fertiliser and clean steel, and even clean aviation fuel.
Here is his shilling for the natural gas industry which he is surely invested in to a huge amount and pied pipered a lot of other people into with obvious disastrous consequences.
So everybody's getting together and talking about the short-term reductions, but the only areas you can make short-term reductions are electric cars and using solar and wind for electricity generation. That's less than 30 per cent of the game – 70 per cent is steel, cement, aviation, land use... People aren’t doing anything about those. If you want to get to a goal, you should start working on the hard things, not just on the easy things. I'm not saying the easy things are easy, they're just relatively easy.
Here he tries his usual tactic of trying to say only easy trivial stuff that isn't that impact-full like electric cars is being addressed and all the important stuff must go to his dog whistle hydrogen natural gas continuation of Enron.