Annual Letter from Bill Gates silent on climate change
"Annual Letter from Bill Gates silent on climate change"
Share:
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest private foundation, aims to help billions of people in developing countries. The goal of its Global Development Program is “increase opportunities for people in developing countries to overcome hunger and poverty.” Their Global Health Program “harnesses advances in science and technology to save lives in poor countries.”
I have been critical of their strategy before (see “Can the problems of the developing world be solved by ignoring global warming?“). And Bill Gates’ annual letter this year does nothing to increase confidence.
There is no mention of global warming or climate change at all. Indeed, the discussion of agriculture contains this rather naively Panglossian statement:
The near-term rise in food prices and the long-term increased demand for food will create opportunities for small farmers even in the poorest countries.
Seriously, Bill?
The near-term rise in food prices is pretty much an unmitigated disaster for the developing world — hence the food riots that inevitably accompany record-setting food prices (see my series on food insecurity). It’s hardly to be touted as an “opportunity.”
The Gates Foundation is certainly to be commended for doing more than almost anyone else to help address hunger in the near term and improve crop yields in the medium term. But that entire effort is doomed to fail if the nations of the world don’t make greenhouse gas mitigation as big a priority as food production and poverty reduction.
Using a “middle of the road” greenhouse gas emissions scenario, a study in Science found that for the more than 5 billion people who will be living in the tropics and subtropics by 2100, growing-season temperatures “will exceed the most extreme seasonal temperatures recorded from 1900 to 2006.” The authors conclude: “Half of world’s population could face climate-driven food crisis by 2100.” And the authors don’t even consider the potentially more devastating impact from more extreme drought and Dust-Bowlification (See NCAR analysis warns we risk multiple, devastating global droughts by mid-century even on moderate emissions path) “” let alone the combination of heat stress and water stress together. Much like the NCAAR analysis, a study led by NOAA scientists found that large parts of Southeast Asia, eastern South America, western Australia, Southern Africa and northern Africa would see rainfall reductions “comparable to those of the Dust Bowl era.” Worse, unlike the Dust Bowl, which lasted a decade or two, this climate change would be “largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop.”
A study led by MIT economists found that “the median poor country’s income will be about 50 percent lower than it would be had there been no climate change.” And that was based on a 3-degree C warming by 2100, perhaps half the warming we are currently on track to reach.
And don’t expect rich countries to come to the rescue. In 2100, we’ll be dealing with the same catastrophes, as well as with over a billion environmental refugees fleeing flooded and uninhabitable lands.
I’m not saying Gates needs to make climate change his sole focus or even his primary focus. But to ignore it entirely is ridiculous. In an earlier letter from Bill and Melinda (that I can’t find on their website, but you can read here), they make Pollyanna, Pangloss and Paula Abdul seem like Henry Kissinger, Mr. Spock and Dr. House:
We’re so hopeful about the potential for rapid progress that we’ve decided the foundation will spend all its money in the next 100 years. In this century, our world has the opportunity to fulfill the great human promise that all lives have equal value.
Now you tell me what are the chances that the developing world won’t need as much if not considerably more help in 2100 than they do today if folks like Bill Gates (and the President) stay largely silent on the problem and don’t devote adequate efforts to moving the world in the direction of sharp greenhouse gas cuts?
Related Post:
FRONT
Hopefully this letter from the Gates Foundation will finally start to get the message through to people that being an insanely wealthy businessman doesn’t equate to having a solid grasp of every problem and its solutions.
I applaud Bill and Melinda Gates for the charitable work they’ve done and continue to do. In fact, I do so loudly and enthusiastically. But I have no delusions, especially in light of some of Bill’s prior comments, that he truly understands the depth, breadth, and nature of climate change.
He’ll never “get the message”. Just look at the investments that the Gates Foundation holds.
In addition to impacts from climate change, the Gates Foundation might want to consider these conclusions from last week’s report from the United Nations Environment Programme, which looks at crop yield reductions from low-level air pollution:
“Tropospheric ozone including near-surface ozone is a major greenhouse gas, harms human health and is linked to significant damage to crops and ecosystems.
A regional assessment report by the UNEP Project Atmospheric Brown Cloud cited annual losses from the wheat, rice, corn and soya bean crop in China, Japan and the Republic of Korea alone-linked with ground level ozone-may be $5 billion a year.
Another study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimates that five per cent of cereal production in the United States is lost to ground level ozone and that by 2100 crop yields globally could be cut by 40 per cent.
It is estimated that in 2000 in the European Union, well over Euro 6 billion-worth of crops were lost due to ozone.
The Sida funded programme on Regional Air Pollution in Developing Countries (RAPIDC) includes studies in e.g. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, as well as in southern Africa, which indicate that the crop yield of wheat may be reduced by some 30% due to air pollution (based on European dose response functions). Investigations in these countries and in Sri Lanka suggest a potential yield loss of 50-80% for mung beans, spinach and potatoes. It has been indicated that rice yield in Japan has been reduced due to the influence of long- range transport of air pollution.
The impact of air pollution on agricultural crops and quality of produce and ensuing food security has hitherto been largely ignored by policy makers. The ubiquitously rising ambient ozone levels are a matter of serious concern in a world with growing food shortages and increasing food prices. Some 75% of the world’s cereal is grown in areas which are exposed to damaging ozone concentrations.
In the ongoing debate on the effects of climate change matters such as floods and soil erosion, drought and desertification are seen as detrimental to sustainable livelihoods, including falling agricultural production. It should be kept in mind though, that air pollution, and above all ground level ozone, may also lead to the impairment of such production where the conditions for agriculture and food production are otherwise excellent.
All of the above excerpts are linked to here:
http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2011/02/rude-awakening.html
The analysis also quantifies the significant effect of ozone on rising temperatures. Climate modelers should take into account the loss of CO2 sinks as vegetation dies back and ceases to photosynthesize.
Maybe bill ‘knows’ that this thing is impossible to beat no matter how much money he has and so he suffles it to the back of his mind.
Has he got kids?
I would suggest also having a look at two of Stephen Leahy’s recent stories in assessing how much of an “opportunity” increasing food prices represent to small farmers in the developing world:
Rampant Speculation Inflated Food Price Bubble – Wall St./Grain Traders Pushing Price Rises
http://stephenleahy.net/2011/02/28/rampant-speculation-inflated-food-price-bubble-wall-stgrain-traders-pushing-price-rises/
In Corrupt Global Food System, Farmland Is the New Gold and Africans the New Share-croppers
http://stephenleahy.net/2011/02/28/in-corrupt-global-food-system-farmland-is-the-new-gold-and-africans-the-new-share-croppers/
Wit’s End, thank you for your ongoing efforts to keep the issue of surface-level ozone before us. I hope it does some good!
Joe
Thanks for writing this post. It is disappointing that the Gates Foundation has not taken the trouble to talk to noted climatologists at either the University of Washington (which can be seen across Lake Union from the Foundations’ headquarters at Seattle Center) and at NOAA on Lake Washington.
Such researchers include:
– Realclimate.org’s Eric Steig
– IPCC contributor, Mike Wallace
– Paleontologist Peter Ward (originator of Medea hypothesis and author of ‘Under a Green Sky’, ‘Medea Hypothesis’ and ‘The Flooded Earth’)
– NOAA’s Dr. Richard Feely, Heinz Foundation award winner for his work on ocean acidificaton.
I could name several more, each of which could explain the impact of climate change on the mission of the Gates Foundation.
While like everyone else I admire the Gates Foundation work in other areas I still don’t genuflect to him or pass out in euphoria at his presence, because it appears that even (at one time) the world’s richest person is not immune to pandering for money, if my hunch is even partially correct that Gates doesn’t mention or focus almost any real energy or resources on climate change because he doesn’t want to anger his soul mate and fellow (current) world’s richest person Warren Buffett, who has promised to donate over 80 per cent of his fortune to the Gates Foundation at the time of his death or that of our species, whichever comes first.
Buffett is the front page and biggest bio in Rolling Stone’s article “The Climate Killers” that appeared in their January 21, 2010 issue with the cover screaming “You Idiots! Meet the planet’s worst enemies” because of his largest investment of 26 billion in the Burlington Northern Santé Fe railroad whose primary profit center is the 300 million tons of coal they deliver to a high percentage of American power plants each year.
Buffett traveled with Gates to the Alberta Tars Sands as a fan and investor in 2009 (as reported here in the link above), dismissed the House climate bill as only a “huge tax” and obviously felt there would never be a tax on carbon (especially with the efforts of fellow billionaires like the Koch Brothers), or he wouldn’t have bought the biggest coal-shipping railroad outside hell.
Gates isn’t on the 2010 or recent 2011 Rolling Stone lists (February 3, 2011), but as I said billionaire Buffett led the list last year, with fellow billionaires Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers heading the list this year.
Whoever said that “It is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven” might’ve had some connections to know what he was talking about.
@ Paulm:
According to Wiki he has 3 kids.
I’ve learned to never underestimate the human capacity for self-deception. If you’ve put lots of money into the tar sands, just tell yourself that AGW isn’t that serious.
Paging Bill Gates advisor Ken Caldeira…
Joe, I think you are selling Bill Gates short on climate. Have you seen his TEDx video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I
[JR: I saw it and blogged on it (linked to above): Bill Gates is wrong about “energy miracles.”
It was like a miraculous ice cream cone made up of 80% homemade chocolate-chocolate chip ice cream and only 20% bat guano. Curiously, the guano kind of stands out when you lick it, and that’s what people talk about.]
He says solving climate change is more important to the 2 billion poorest people than to anyone else. He says science is clear that we have to get to ZERO CO2. It isn’t a matter of just reducing CO2 we have to stop it completely and time is very short to do this. Climate hawks might not agree on the same solution he sees, but there is no doubt he understands and has spoken clearly in public about the issue.
I’m actually very heartened by Gates TEDx speech because it is my experience that Bill has not been an “environmentalist” in the past. I’m not even sure he is one now. So the fact that he is starting to show signs of understanding the climate threat and starting to act on it is very hopeful in my book. Also the man has proven he can make things happen when he puts his mind, talents, connections and huge amounts funds behind it.
I agree that the Gates Foundation should be better messengers on climate. I’m sure they will be soon as it threatens to wipe out the good work they have done so far.
There are plenty of rich people who do nothing useful with their fortunes….and could care less what happens to the world’s most poor people.
Also Gates favoured solution to climate change — fourth gen nukes — is exactly the same one that James Hansen calls for. I’d rather see renewables like solar myself…but Gates certainly has good company in the option he is investing in.
Richard #8. Normally I agree with your assessments, but this time I think you need to research Gates’ speeches and actions on climate and judge him by those and not his friends.
I certainly have friends who don’t care a fig about climate threats. Heck I have family members in that camp.
Also your statement that Gates sucks up to other people for their money is off the mark.
Buffet however has shown himself to be insensitive to the plight of many of the world’s most vulnerable — human and otherwise. The silver lining is that perhaps he has recognized this fact about himself and that is why he is giving his money to Gates Foundation to do something with so he doesn’t have to engage. Maybe the friendship is working the opposite direction you imagine. Time will tell.
We must presume that Gates does whatever he wants. It used to be a rule that those who are smarter and wealthier have a moral obligation to lead the rest of the world. Gates prefers to ignore this duty – or perhaps he thinks he is neither wealthy nor smart enough to act ethically.
We might look to the Foundation investments as filed with the SEC for 2009 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1166559/000104746909010214/0001047469-09-010214.txt [why are current documents so very hard to find? – I hope someone can search] But in 2009 the Foundation owned lots stock in ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, Cabot Oil and Gas and XTO Energy.. over a billion (B) dollars worth of carbon fuel stock.
I can see why it would be costly for them to challenge carbon combustion in any way.
But it seems shortsighted – even if the Foundation pledged to exist only 50 years – they plan to be long gone by the year 2100. But their actions are so disturbing to the future of the world – and horribly damaging to a reputation for someone trying to influence the future in a good way.
http://www.theboywhodeniedwolf.com/2009/02/why-the-gates-foundation-ignores-global-warming-pt-2.html
We need a Gandhi.
Bad.
An excellent independent blog on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the Gates Keepers http://gateskeepers.civiblog.org/blog
‘The near-term rise in food prices and the long-term increased demand for food will create opportunities for small farmers even in the poorest countries. ….. increasing production in Africa will be critical for the world to have enough food.’
That seems a fairly sensible thing to say, in the context of a section of the letter about farm aid and development.
Above he says ‘There is so much potential in agricultural development because most poor people in the world feed their families and earn their income from farming. When farmers increase their productivity, nutrition is improved and hunger and poverty are reduced.’
I can’t see the issue. And if one worries that CC will negatively affect farming yields it’s especially important to improve productivity, and higher prices will, in his opinion, help that.
I believe that part of the problem lies in Mr. Gates mistaken belief that because he led the world’s largest software company he is equally capable of running his Foundation. Teacherken posted a good rundown on the mistakes Gates has made when his foundation has, and continues to try, to tackle problems in the education system (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/28/950902/-A-partial-response-to-Bill-Gates-op-ed-about-teachers).
If someone is supposedly such a good leader, I would hope that he would recognize that many of his endeavors are very poor investments. Partly because they are untested, and partly because they don’t address the root issues which are common to many of our societal problems. Including climate change.
If Gates thinks that we can solve public health challenges like malaria without factoring in how climate change is already driving such disease vectors to previously untouched areas, then he’s not as smart as he thinks he is.
Gates invests in Monsanto. Need we say more.
Gates is heavily intertwined with the agenda of big oil and gas, big coal and atomic power. The pattern is very clear. Describing the pattern would include words such as plutocracy, elitism, environmental destruction and decreasing global health due to contamination from fossil hydrocarbon combustion and atomic fission (aka nuclear power).
Tell that to MSNBC.
It is a real pity that Bill Gates & his foundation don’t recognise the impact of climate change as all the good stuff they are trying to achieve is made all the more difficult by its impacts. Every human problem is going to be exacerbated as climate change impacts start to hit. Bill proved himself to be both a visionary and a leader with his success at Microsoft but his apparent refusal to engage in the climate issue is an abdication of leadership in both thought and practice.
Barry (#13) – I’m a fan of your comments as well, but we might have to respectfully disagree about this one. You make some good points as always, but I think the other commenters beginning with Richard Pauli (#14) make better ones.
As with Bill Gates in his TED talk, Rupert Murdoch has also acknowledged the seriousness of climate change in his talks, but in both cases their actions (of Fox and all others in Murdoch’s media empire, and of the corporations Gates invests in and his foundation’s lack of addressing climate change) speak far louder than their words.
While I agree Gates can be a bright guy in his areas of expertise, I am not in awe of his wisdom. When you read Daniel Yergin’s Pulitzer Prize winning book about the history of the oil industry, “The Prize” (ignore the fact that Yergin’s now merely a PR hack for the oil industry), you might conclude as I do that the history of the oil and I’d say every other industry is just of one bright but ruthless jerk out-competing (and often out-lucking as well – if Gates had been born just years later it seems likely that we would have never heard of him) the next.
The same is true with computers, with the added caveat that guys like Gates and Jobs are super-bright engineers as well.
But what if Gates had never existed? Would the computer world and world be a better or a worse place? (I’d enjoy hearing the opinions of the many computer geeks who could answer that infinitely better than I could.) Was he a year or in some cases years ahead of the curve? Wouldn’t others have filled any gaps about as efficiently? Wouldn’t there be about as much or more money in the system that he and Microsoft sucked out for others to do as much or more charitable work, including governments?
Conversely, scientists like Galileo and especially Newton (who didn’t take calculus like Gates and other bright students, he invented it) advanced science maybe a century or more ahead of where it would have otherwise been (admittedly that was easier then than now, when a great scientist might be fortunate to advance science by a year).
More impressive still, human thought was drifting in one general direction and true luminaries like the Buddha, Jesus, Frederick Douglas, Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, Gandhi and Martin Luther King turned it another direction entirely, typically at great sacrifice to themselves.
Gates was ruthless, predatory and monopolistic, as many court records show, worked many employees into burn-out, ill-health or worse, amassed a fortune at one time over 100 billion dollars, lives in a 66,000 square foot compound, had apparently no conscience until he married one, has made no real sacrifices I’m aware of, perpetuates his power by investing in the biggest and most polluting corporations including Monsatan (Mulga’s brilliant term), and unlike you and your friends courts his soullessmate Warren Buffett, an also bright, affable billionaire heavily invested in coal who once said (as quoted in the book “Liar’s Poker”) “I’ll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It’s addictive. And there’s fantastic brand loyalty.”
That is the mindset of the vast majority of people playing and winning at the game of amassing the most personal wealth they can, which isn’t the game I feel we’re here to play.
So while I always like your insights I stand by what I said (at #8), and what others are saying here as well, and I’ve taken off my dollar sign glasses long enough to see that Gates doesn’t belong in my pantheon of most-respected people, no matter his team’s PR efforts.
This is a fabulous, cutting-edge, story on ocean acidification. Does the Gates Foundation know that almost half the world’s population rely on food from the see. Must watch! The adverse effects of acidification caused by increased CO2 on the ocean: http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/03/02/3153565.htm
Your focus on Bill Gates is smart. Let me suggest another “player” who deserves an occasional nudge to speak out more forcefully on climate.
Hans Rosling is perhaps the most popular TED speaker of all time. TED has an audience of influential folks that get involved (and, of course, TED has often featured Al Gore and others on climate issues in their videos).
Rosling’s arguments about opening up public data bases are wonderful. Unfortunately, his optimism about population, food, public health (his specialty) and poverty is in sharp contrast to Lester Brown’s pessimism. Rosling and Brown are both special, dedicated people with tremendous experience in the developing world. But, I worry that Rosling’s “can do” spirit promises too much and has too few caveats about how climate change can derail it all.
It would be helpful for Rosling to caveat his optimism with more forceful caveats on global warming.