Alright, I confess. I’m a big, giant Olympics addict. I love the intensity and the drama. I could pass on the constant nationalism and medal count lists, and I’ll probably be considered un-American for saying this, but I’m really over Apolo Ohno. Because of the Olympics, my TV has been on way more than it usually is and I feel like I’m still missing things.
But I didn’t miss something big that happened at last week’s TED Conference, where Bill Gates stood up and argued that climate change is the biggest issue we face today. And, more importantly, that the only target which is acceptable for success is zero emissions by 2050. That’s right. ZERO.
Worldchanging’s Alex Steffen (who was at TED *envy*) argues that this was the most important climate change speech of the year. Steffen goes on to discuss the Gates Climate Equation – CO2 = P+S+E+C – what it means, and how he would modify it. Worldchanging has since published a counterargument by Joe Romm (he runs ClimateProgress.org – we love them). Both analyses are incredibly insightful, and I didn’t find them to be necessarily contradictory. Romm argues that we need to focus on accelerating the deployment of existing clean energy technologies, not on research and development of new technologies. Steffen argues that the merit of the speech is in the vision, but also criticizes Gates’ articulation of the equation and the way forward.
Not having seen or heard the TED speech, my biggest complaint is about the sound bite we’re hearing: Gates’ quote, “We need energy miracles.” What is either omitted from most articles or buried below the fold is that Gates went on to say that energy miracles would be a result of massive investment in alternative energy research and development. In other words, we need miracles that can only be a result of tremendous effort. That second part is what he was really calling for, not the miracles – the hard work. (According to Gates, similar ‘miracles’ include the microprocessor and the internet.)
What needs to be reported much more broadly (in my opinion as the primary headline) is that Gates drew the connection between the work that his Foundation does now – fighting poverty and disease – and climate change. Gates recognizes that if we don’t figure out climate change, the challenges presented by poverty and famine will be insurmountable. He knows it, and he stood up and said it in front of everyone.
So yes, I do think that Bill Gates gets climate change. And while I don’t agree with everything he said – such as his inclusion of nuclear energy in his proposed clean energy portfolio – I do love that he is now in the game. Because whatever you may think of him, it’s hard to argue with the fact that he’s a game changer. Gates has tremendous public and financial clout, and a very different and much wider audience than most of the people currently working to address climate change. So when he stands up and declares that climate change is the key issue and redefines the metric for success in such a dramatic way, it is a really big deal. It will be interesting to see who was listening.
f Gts ds hv n nflnc, thn ntr wll sffr frm th bl scrn f dth n. C2 s nt a plltnt. Nd Rmm frm clmt prgrss bng nsghtfl? Hs th dfntn f nsghtfl chngd t dgmtc?
Hey, where did all my vowels go? This troll comment has been disemvoweled by the site owner. Constructive discussion of alternate perspectives is welcome. Snarky trollish comments are not.
Disemvoweled? How cute is that? I think that the more mainstream Climate Change becomes, even if we don’t always agree with everything that everyone said, the better. There will come a tipping point where it can’t be ignored anymore. Where SUVs aren’t as important as change.
Thanks
. I can’t take credit for disemvoweled, but I can take credit for stealing it and passing it along.
I really hope that is the case. I sometimes wonder if it seems like people are catching onto change because that is the kind of people I seek out, or if it actually is starting to shift.