Of course, he could choose to not live a super-high consumption lifestyle in addition to his climate philanthopy, but if I had to take one or the other, I'd rather him continue throwing money at climate work than take fewer private jet rides.
And it’s not like we’re talking about some huge sacrifices here. Go from a 50K sqft house to a “modest” 10k sqft one. Don’t sail around on personal yachts. Fly commercial. Use Zoom. Simple stuff that would give them a lot more credibility. As it is, it’s a whole lot of “do as I say, not as I do.”
This has always been the sticking point for me when it comes to supporting large charities.
The way to fight climate change is to keep people at a low level of consumption, and spend his own money very slowly, very scarcely. And keep people with small cars, no Cadillac for any consultant.
Helping people out of poverty is really bad for the environment too but I don't think we should be complaining when someone does that.
On a global scale his yacht(s?) and private jets are nothing, and if it helps him do good by establishing/maintaining relationships with the right people they're an "investment" into a stopping climate change.
A bit of a naive take as opposed to yours.
If anyone deserves a bit of good faith it'd be the Gates family, it's probably not all pretty and perfect but I am convinced they're doing a lot of good.
You'll have to ask someone else about proof, but I imagine someone would've leaked something within these 25 years if they were running a tax evasion scheme or something else fishy.
So without hard proof I repeat: Let Bill have his toys, it's a piss in the bucket on a global scale and the donated 100 billion dollars will have offset that in some way or another many times over.
Let's just say my "sniff test" says good, and while not always right I think I am here and that's good enough for me.
I mean, having more than one of either already seems ridiculously wasteful to me, and I don't care if that's standard billionaire lifestyle.