ROSE tinted spectacles AND the Optics of climate change

Bill Gates has always been my least offensive tech billionaire, not so much because of his philanthropy, but because he has not made the assault on the truth part of his business model and has championed science instead. Which is why his memo today, Three tough truths about climate felt like a depressing capitulation, or at least a brain fart. Indeed, Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, described it as “pointless, vague, unhelpful and confusing.”

In a nutshell, Gates argues that as rising temperatures are already locked in, the world is too obsessed with lowering emissions and needs to direct more resources to funding resilience. Rejecting doomsday scenarios, he explains that science and technology will mitigate climate change's effects and that “people will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future”, adding that, “although climate change will hurt poor people more than anyone else, for the vast majority of them it will not be the only or even the biggest threat to their lives and welfare. The biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been.”

I have no problem with Gates reminding us that the Third World needs support to cope with climate change. And perhaps his memo is in part a reminder to keep up the good fight and not give into despair as we adapt. However, there is a rosy tintedness to his thinking; a kind of geeky nerdy ‘can do’ aberration born of capitalist enlightenment that strikes me as idealistic and naïve.

Gates argues prosperity is the key quality-of-life metric; as Third World countries get richer, less of their people will die. He wants to fast track their economic growth so they can better protect themselves against the ravages of climate change and believes the energy required for this will come from new technologies including hydrogen, fusion and algae derived fuels. All well and good except these technologies are embryonic at best, and the current US administration is aggressively denialist and funding new fossil fuel projects while demanding weaker economies follow their lead. Then there is the fact that the US and other countries are cutting international aid, in no small part thanks to a global populist movement hostile to refugees. All of which begs the obvious question: when and how is this funded adaptation going to occur?

In emphasising resilience and adaptation over real politik and the existential threat of climate change, Gates's hopeful idealism sadly enables those seeking to sabotage net zero by fair means or foul. If history tells us anything, it’s that self-interest is a primary motivator; there is no sign of a helping hand being extended to the Third World. The only way to ensure the future of humanity, not to mention the living planet, is to reduce the root cause of climate change, namely anthropogenic carbon emissions. This requires making sure everyone understands it is in their best interests to do so as fast as possible.