Tough truths about climate | Hacker News Reader

Tough truths about climate

gatesnotes.com

> Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.

Interesting and different perspective vs. what many others often say (but that’s one of the points he’s making).

I feel a lot of climate articles — and the comments attached to their HN threads — tend to favor more of the doomsday message he’s arguing against here.

Question is that how long is foreseeable future?

It is very likely that the time span for an individual is long enough that the change does not matter. Still the future will arrive and most likely sooner than we thought.

That’s assuming over half the world’s population will just say “oh well, this is my life now. I wouldn’t want to bother those people in the good parts.” There will be upheavals everywhere.

> Interesting and different perspective vs. what many others often say (but that’s one of the points he’s making).

The uncharitable interpretation being that he's trying to toe the line for the current US administration, while still signaling that he's part of the communities that he typically inhabits as part of his charity work.

He says that as if he's certain it can't possibly, even a remote possibility, lead to societal collapse. First, there is no way he can be certain about that. Second, what is an acceptable probability for an existential threat? That's the real question to answer, and he didn't attempt to answer it.

societal collapse != humanities demise.

Climate change could do a lot of damage it’s just not extinction level damage. Even large scale nuclear war based on current stockpiles isn’t going to result in extinction.

We're splitting hairs, but that still leaves the question, "what probability of societal collapse do you think is acceptable?

IMO it’s about minimizing harm at this point.

There’s levels of societal collapse, mass migration can destroy the existing social fabric without necessarily being that terrible. Fertility rates being so low means developed countries will likely want large numbers of immigrants.

At the other end stopping all CO2 production tomorrow would result in severe consequences. We can’t transport food to cities without burning fossil fuels. Obviously that doesn’t mean every current use case is worthwhile, but we can’t ignore the short term here.

The good news is we’re actually making a lot of progress on climate change. The electric grid being ~90% very low carbon emissions by 2050 is a realistic goal and would avoid the worst predictions.

I don't see any progress in terms of the rate of increase in atmospheric co2 over time.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...

That graph is well below earlier forecasts. Accurate predictions require more than simple extrapolations which 30 years ago suggested exponential growth. Instead CO2 per capita and especially in terms of GDP resulted in a different story.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita

Add in more kids being born in 1985 than 2025 and per capita numbers matter. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-births-per-year

Poor countries are rapidly becoming wealthier which is obviously a good thing. Meanwhile wealthy countries are becoming a lot more efficient with their carbon emissions. Where those lines intersect is what matters in the near term because poor countries aren’t copying 1950’s technology. Skipping power hungry CRT screens and inefficient engines etc just makes economic sense. China emissions spiked as they industrialized but they are currently minimizing their investment in outdated fossil fuel based technologies in favor of solar and EV’s etc.

Co2 levels are the best metric for progress, and progress would be a steady lowering of the rate of increase. We are not seeing that, and AI's power hunger is likely to make it worse despite all of the positive things you mentioned.

CO2 levels tell you nothing about future progress, the legacy of soon to be removed infrastructure built 40+ years ago still impacts it. Meanwhile the vast majority of power brought online in the last decade is ultra low carbon. We know how that story plays out.

AI powered by renewables has ~zero impact on the climate.

I hope you're right, but I'm not optimistic. The demands for power by AI is immediate and extremely large. We can't bring nuclear online fast enough so it will likely keep co2 output high.

Assuming you are right, when would you expect the rate of atmospheric co2 increases to start to decline?

I expect the global peak annual CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry to occur sometime in the next 5 years largely dependent on economic activity. I’d give it something like 90% odds.

CO2 from land use (deforestation etc) has already dropped by half since the 1960’s, but I know less about that so I’m unsure of the details. That said it’s well under 10% of total emissions so probably not a major factor for now. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-land-use?mapSelect=~C...

Is infinite growth really a positive thing on a finite planet? Are native populations replaced physically and culurally the answer to making an imaginary number go up annually?

My point was about a declining global population concentrating in a few areas not being a major issue.

Globally more babies were born in 1985 than 2025. Population growth at this point is all down to people living longer but that’s a one time correction, we’re already in a steady state situation and heading to decline. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-births-per-year

There is a non-zero possibility of Taylor Swift causing societal collapse.

That's not a reason to take such a scenario seriously.

Non-zero describes the chance of everything, sure. Infinite improbability drive and all that. But the chance of climate collapse causing social collapse is pretty much just a function of how bad we let it get measured in degrees C.

Your example is infinitesimally small, climate change is not. But you didn't answer the question either, what probability of societal collapse do you think is acceptable?

What existential threat to society do people/society really take seriously?

Having grown up in the 60s and 70s, I'd say people took nuclear war seriously. People had different opinions on how likely it was and whether it was an extinction event, but there was near unanimity that it was "a really bad idea." The obvious difference was that was impossible to doubt it was man-made and it wasn't something that slowly built up over decades--there was no way to say it was "normal"

I think it’s a fair point to say it was considered as a serious threat to certain countries(US/Russia/UK/China etc). And militaries certainly did prepare for it. But other than Switzerland with all their bunkers - which society in all facets prepared for it, really?

WW2 with it’s restrictions & rationing, and almost all civilian economy/effort being redirected to the military is I think what a lot of people are wanting in my honest opinion.

You also didn't attempt to answer it. What probability of societal collapse (however you define it) do you find acceptable?

Depends on where you are in the world.

For the developed world, climate change will be annoying but not serious. The US may have to give up on Miami and New Orleans, and build seawalls for New York. Some crops may have to be grown further north. Some irrigation systems will need upgrades. More power will be needed for air conditioning. Those will not seriously damage a society. After all, right now the biggest problem in American agriculture is where to put all the excess soy and corn.

Countries in Asia with heavily populated big river delta areas of shallow slope are very vulnerable to small rises in sea level, because the coast moves a long way inland. China and Vietnam can probably engineer their way out of those problems.

Some countries near the equator with political instability are in big trouble.[1] Too poor and too disorganized to upgrade water and agriculture systems.

[1] https://www.rescue.org/article/10-countries-risk-climate-dis...

> For the developed world, climate change will be annoying but not serious.

Spillover of problems like mass migration away from the equator and increase in conflicts.

Also increased threat of far-right rule in democracies and general dehumanizing attitude toward people in trouble.

That's not a prediction, it's a current reality. It's already prescribed by calling circumstances people have no control over "being in trouble":

but that is certainly not wrong!

If someone smashes your windows at night, robs you, you're in trouble.

If you're being threatened with a weapon, you're in trouble.

But you're also in trouble when you leave your house in a freezing night and don't remember to put your keys in your pocket.

If you're unlawfully detained, you're in trouble, as much as you are in trouble when you're detained for a good reason.

Dehumanizing people who are "in trouble" is as old as humanity itself.

Rape victims are also in trouble.

Even worse, trouble tends to accumulate and amplify existing trouble.

Some people think that's just how the world works.

It's certainly how a world of animals works.

And a "fair" world is hard to imagine, the human condition is partly an attempt to achieve it though.

Food supply chains disrupted. Piracy will increase and spread.

Basically, the spherical cow mindset of "just police the borders harder" is wishful thinking. The world is interconnected in multiple aspects, not just physical borders. Even if you succeed in immunising yourself from all side effects, your immediate neighbor may not be successful, and the instability can come for you through many mechanisms. Prices of food, breakup of the EU, wars, authoritarianism in your own society. Just look at Canada dealing with tariffs through little fault of their own. It isn't as easy as declaring yourself as immune from international instability.

One of the reasons the best time to make sure every first-world country is self reliant was yesterday; the second best time is today.

Another spherical cow solution.

I wonder how software engineers will fare in a “self reliant” economy. Do unvested stocks work in a barter?

Without trade interdependencies wars seem much more attractive to powerhungry leaders of countries, engineers can probably earn a living building killer ai robots.

Careful to what you wish for.

Autarky can be often found in 19th century literature. The one we hopefully don't want to have or produce anymore.

Thats one of those things that, once it gets bad enough, it will be solved rapidly with automated sentry turrets or similar technology and will turn into an annoying logistics problem of keeping the sentry turrets armed. It isn't correct to point at that as the thing thatcmakes the original statement untrue.

As long as you classify as annoyances the overheat deaths of many poorer and/or frailer (and a few wealthy-but-unlucky) members of your developed world, then indeed you can call this annoying. Also you can drop the "will be" and start using "is".

I have been waiting for our leaders to realize we need to build seawalls (not just New York- covering both coasts). Some large contractors are going to make a lot of money.

I think he’s probably right, but to be clear there are billions of deaths that fit into his prediction. Humans living and thriving does not preclude a massive drop in population.

It is very hard to gauge what he actually believes will happen based on these words

The plague did wonders for us, didnt it? Of course dead people arent livivng or thriving, but if they leave behind a world that has more job opportunities, housing opportunities, cleaner environments, quality food for less....

Ahh yes the Thanos argument

There have been historical cases made that the plague was a driver of a series of follow on events that upended the previous order - so people like Gates sitting at the top of the current world order might not want to be so blase about the effects of climate change

to be clear there are billions of deaths that fit into his prediction.

That's not clear at all. Claiming 25%+ of the world will die is the kind of hyperbolic doomsday claim the Gates is trying to move away from because it distracts from sane climate mitigation strategies.

I agree.

This is the first message I am hearing, “There are more important things than climate change.”

It’s almost shocking to hear it. The cynical side of my mind is wondering if this is the start of a slow pivot for the political masses. Another news item today says that emissions reduction pledges are not forthcoming in new world climate discussions. Perhaps messaging about climate change is evolving.

>—it will not lead to humanity’s demise.

Can't read the article, but if he doesn't think climate change will do it, is he offering any new alternatives?

I wish sophisticated communicators like Gates would skip the strawpeople arguments as setups; it's the end of any serious examination before it even begins.

> doomsday message

That term reveals a partisan position: it's a strawperson ridiculing those who talk about the great risks and harms of climate change. 'Don't look up!'

> Interesting and different perspective

It's an old, well-worn perspective, that is commonplace now - especially in American business and government, it's more common than the 'realist' perspective on climate change. It's incredible that they - the entrenched, very powerful status quo power structure - depict themselves as insurgents for advocating the same old climate denial policies.

IMHO: The entrenched capitalists (including Gates) and their power structure simply don't want to change - a bias of the status quo. They are asserting a reactionary conservative position - no change, no matter what, and hate those who want change - regardless of its validity in reality, with the idea that nobody can make them change. They make spurious arguments like Gates to divert people - a tactic they can do endlessly.

The idea that the answer to the enormous damage of the entrenched capitalists is empower them more is, when you think about it, laughable and absurdly myopic and self serving. They can't even carry out the charade for 10 minutes - now those entrenched capitalists are building massive power-consuming datacenters, eliminating ESG, destroying renewable energy in the world's biggest economy ... I'm sure they'll save us.

But notice I keep talking about entrenched capitalists. An essential of capitalism and free markets is creative destruction. These failed capitalists - and climate change is an historic failure, about which their predictions and decisions were enormous errors - should be destroyed (economically) and buried like Lehman Brothers, and new ones, who correctly anticipate it and deal with it, should be funded.

Really, all we need is to stop making taxpayers fund climate change - prevention, remediation, cleanup from disasters, etc. - and have a GHG tax that prices things according to their real cost, rather than subsidizing the current failures. Then real, innovative capitalists in a free market can thrive.

I mean "People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future." Seems pretty fucking doomsday to me. Most Places?

Like I don't think anyone thought the world would implode, but an increase in the number of places humanity can't survive? What if one of those places is South Florida? What if one of those places causes mass emmigration/immigration.

Climate change is so confusing to message about in this sense, because the future is not decided.

We're on track to warm the planet far past the point that of sustaining something you and I would recognise as human society. That said, we're also changing course which has the opportunity to mitigate things.

The meta part is, if everyone thinks we'll change course, that affects whether we do. There's no straight prediction that can be made.

Bill Gates opinion has the same value, as a random HN commenter...or less ...due to his bias.

Gates is making a speculative case that climate change can be (should be) fought with the needs of the global poor at top-of-mind. He acknowledges the apparent zero-sum nature of it: impoverished people face much greater and more immediate threats than climate change, and fossil fuel tech (for example) really does address those urgent threats effectively. He solves this conundrum by speculating that we can have our cake (help the global poor) and eat it too (slow climate change) by inventing new tools and methods.

I hope he's right. I'm glad he's doing this advocacy. By doing so he's fighting two popular opinions, first that climate change is a hoax, and second, that climate change must be addressed even if it means sacrificing the well-being of the global poor. That said, I have grave concerns that Gates is simply wrong, that we cannot invent our way out of both climate change and the suffering of the global poor. His many remarkable mentions of AI do not, in my opinion, lend strength to his argument, nor does his mention of "almost commercialized" fusion. The former being a gimmick, the latter being forever 30 years away. If our hopes rest on tech like that, then we must prepare to be devastated and pick one side of the zero-sum.

>That said, I have grave concerns that Gates is simply wrong, that we cannot invent our way out of both climate change and the suffering of the global poor.

My take on this is that he has thought about this longer than anyone posting here and has the data to back it up... that is there are no other solutions given human nature.

> That said, I have grave concerns that Gates is simply wrong, that we cannot invent our way out of both climate change and the suffering of the global poor.

I feel positive around whether or not we can- renewable and battery technology in incredible at the moment and we could shift quickly to a much less devastating track if the political will was there.

That said, without the political story, technology itself can't change things. We've seen this by the fact thay renewable technology advances have also come alongside technology advances in the fossil fuel industry, like fracking.

Around a 1/3 of CO2 emision is down to agriculture, which is mostly meat (and of that mostly beef). There's no tech fix required here, since humans can survive easily without beef, but something would need to change economically or otherwise so that the CO2 impact of food factors into our collective diets.

This is one of these nuanced takes that will please few. It acknowledges all sorts of uncertainty and adopts ethical priorities that cannot be established empirically even if (unlikely) the facts are universally agreed upon. I applaud the attempt and wish there could be real debate over this and other complex positions.

Agreed. But I think it is also worth pointing out that many climate activists (and, I think, the predominant climate narrative) has really shot itself in the foot with the extinction talk. I get it. It's hard to get people to care when you say, "it will probably be pretty unpleasant, and extremely unpleasant in some places." It's a lot easier to get people very excited when your message is, "this is definitely an extinction level event." But the latter is a lie. And eventually lies get outed. And then whoever was telling the lie loses credibility. And possibly the pendulum swings too far in the other direction–"there is definitely nothing to worry about with respect to the climate."

Everyone who cares about climate change needs to stop talking about it in C to an American audience. 2 degrees sounds small, but 3.6 degrees F is significant. 3 degrees still sounds reasonably small, but 5.6 degrees F is getting to be a lot. Generally speaking Americans have no idea how much a 2 or 3 degree C difference is in F and so they just hear 2 or 3 degrees F.

More important than that, we are not talking about the temperature you are feeling right now where you are, but global average temperature, and in the context of the 1.5°C over the preindustrial average, we are talking about that average, kept over several years.

What you feel locally is weather, including extreme weather. It can go to extremes in either direction, but with more global average temperature the system have more energy to increase the frequency and how extreme is that weather.

And speed matters. The baseline of preindustrial times is because we started the high emissions trend around there, but we reached 0.5°C by 1930-1950, and 1.0°C by 2015-2017. And the first full calendar year that had over 1.5°C over preindustrial times was 2024, but we need more years to average to talk about the same numbers.

Yes there are a lot of complicated second order effects from an increase in the average, but if you simply told people "We're looking at temperatures everywhere going up by 5.6 degrees on average, all the time", that sounds like a lot. 3 degrees doesn't sound like that much.

The problem is that you don't see the averages. What you see is that in some places for some days the temperature was 40°C over what they used to have in that time of the year (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/03/24/parts-of...), the heat dome of 2021 should be a good warning (or warming) of the kind of extreme weather that 1.5°C could bring and increase frequency. Or the disruption of the polar vortex bringing extremely cold temperatures.

What you see in your normal everyday life is that things that you were used to are not that way anymore. And that there are some activities (like agriculture) that depend on some stability on weather. At least till we cross another threshold and things not seen in human history start to happen enough to be noticed, but by then it will be too late. What we need is to trust the measurements.

It's true. Climate change is not an extinction threat. Never was, and certainly isn't now.

Climate change is the COVID of global natural disasters. Is it worth fighting? Yes. Can you do absolutely nothing about it and get away with it? Also yes. Cue the lackluster efforts.

The "really bad" +4C scenarios still have a death toll larger than that of WW2 - but spread out in time and space, across many decades and many countries. And the most vulnerable countries? The countries that are already on the brink. Climate change is not the "great equalizer" people want it to be.

In those "bad" scenarios, the main source of lethality for climate change is: agricultural failures, leading to local shortages and global price spikes, leading to famine. First world countries can eat a sharp +40% spike in food prices, at the cost of quality of life - but there are numerous countries where such a spike would have a death toll attached to it.

And what do populations with a death sentence hanging over their heads usually do? Oh yeah, they take up arms and try to invade their better off neighbours.

Maybe that's a worst case scenario, but the better ones still include many millions of people displaced towards more temperate zones. It will lead to the greatest migration humanity ever suffered and I'm not sure that in a scenario of scant resources, that's going to go on in a peaceful and dignified manner.

The obvious counterpoint to any "hordes of climate refugees will destroy the first world countries" is that borders exist, and machine guns were invented over a century ago.

The reality of modern warfare doesn't favor large forces, poorly organized and underequipped, that are attacking reasonably well prepared defense positions.

Now, is there a will to use all the tools of modern warfare against climate refugees? Currently, no. But if "hordes of climate refugees will destroy the first world countries" stopped being a distant theoretical concern, and became a practical one? If there were real examples of border checkpoints in first world countries being breached by force, with border security overran, and thousands of somewhat armed and somewhat violent climate refugees pouring in through the breach? I expect that to change very quickly.

Well, I wasn't try to imply that the refugees would win, and yes, that's entirely the point because the scenario qualifies as a breakdown of human civilization that Gates doesn't acknowledge. Even if some people will still be able to have their Sunday brunch while their country's borders are bathed in refugee blood.

Even WW2 wasn't a "breakdown of human civilization".

I think that for most of Europe the 1939-1944 period was mostly living in the dark ages, but yes, you could still get tickets for the Rockettes at the Radio City if you were a middle class New Yorker.

"Thirty years ago, when I was running Microsoft, I wrote a long memo to employees about a major strategic pivot we had to make: embracing the internet in every product we made."

The impact of that "pivot" has been catastrophic as we are reminded every time the news reports the damages associated with remotely exploited flaws in Microsoft's software and the public's dissatisfaction with "automatic updates" (i.e., being part of the Redmond botnet), a feeble attempt to "fix" these flaws through a never ending game of whack-a-mole

Asking people to lower their living standards will not work.

So next best thing is to prepare for future changes with potential solutions now.

This is most realistic approach I can see. Start now developing solutions that then have to be put into place.

Inflation is already lowering the living standards of millions, but without any reduction on ghg. So the most realistic approach is that we have to deal both reduced living standards AND a changing environment. But the rich will be rich, so there's that.

> But the rich will be rich

If you're in a developed country, you are the rich.

For now.

I don't disagree with his new perspective. OTH, the cynical side of me thinks that the power requirements for AI/Microsoft may be playing into this new position.

Interesting that there's zero mention of regulation, even thought that's cheap and effective in ramping down fossils use as proven by the carbon trading system in EU.

Carbon taxes are probably the most effective tool but politically unpalatable.

What's the advantage over the so far politically palatable carbon trading systems? Seems to me the end result is pretty much the same, except in carbon trading systems the market mechanism automatically adjusts the price to the available quota.

The advantage is that they work. Carbon trading schemes get watered down to the point that they are ineffective.

Actual title: "Three tough truths about climate"

For better or worse, the HN software automatically edits titles. Perhaps the word "Three" was removed automaticallly. Submitters can fix these changes by using the "edit" URL

I think one of the most important things the "message" has gotten wrong is that you personally need to make big sacrifices and suffer: Buy a worse/more expensive car. Stop eating meat. Don't use disposable plates. Stop travelling. This is the stuff that fuels reactionaries.

Really the most impactful stuff is at the margins anyway: Whether your electricity comes from coal or solar. How many rare earths can we mine and recycle? Do you have a lawn or xeriscape?

The story here is not really that Gates has changed his mind (he never got rid of his private jet after all) it's the emphasis that doomscrolling is counterproductive.

The personal sacrifice cult was largely put forth by corporations and corporate media insisting on an individual's carbon footprint.

That said, it's somewhat unfair that, say, 1 Australian can have the footprint of 7–8 Indian people. So some changes are good overall, such as eating more vegetables and less carbon intensive meat (which also improves land usage).

I agree with you about other fringe choices, but most people can't control the energy mix of their country. We can advocate for better choices at the high level, which is great news because people have been doing just that.

I do find the positive tone of the climate models a bit worrying: some of the projections still consider permafrost decay to be fatal to most of the human race.

> "All greenhouse gas emissions come from one of five sources" > (Graphic shows electricity generation 28%, transportation 16%, agriculture 19%, buildings 7%, manufacturing 30%)

There's another large source of human greenhouse gas emissions that will perhaps be the most difficult to do anything about and which as far as I know we don't have much in the way of hard numbers about, and that is emissions from military activity. Not just wars, but ordinary peace-time training, patrol operations, hauling stuff around, and so on.

It's not separate. That would be included in manufacturing, transportation, and electricity.

Ha! And military combat vehicles are exempt from emissions regulations.

getting the whole world to agree on climate accords didn't work. we blew past the 1 degree allowance we had budgeted for ourselves, so global action together is off the table. What will work, is extraordinary efforts by smaller groups. There's a lot of hard work by tiny groups and individuals to technologies that don't need the whole world to agree to collective action in order to save the planet. The obvious science fiction idea is to put sunglasses between the Earth and the sun, which is a ludicrous idea, because you'd need an insane amount of capability to lift things into space and place them far away from Earth. Once there, you'd just blackmail all the Earth's governments into paying you so the solar panels they rely on will work in order for your venture to be profitable.

This isn't far off from their point, albeit without the geoengineering. Reducing the green premium solves the collective action problem.

The important thing to remember is that some of those bad parts where people will die from heat have nukes. Like Pakistan [0].

[1] https://www.arabnews.com/node/2352831/pakistan

Bill Gates gets attacked by both the right and the left. But the truth is that he has made huge progress for human welfare in working to eradicate serious diseases as well as by bringing practical solutions to climate issues.

>Bill Gates gets attacked by both the right and the left.

My first instinct is he's doing something right then... the problem is policy and human nature.

> > Bill Gates gets attacked by both the right and the left

They attack him because he constantly yaps about stuff without being elected or yaps stuff that is not even within the purpose of his 501c3 foundation.

I don't know why he behaves that way honestly, being relevant in the discourse might attract talent to work at the foundation but also produces attacks on the foundation, I guess in his calculus he comes out ahead.

I’m not sure this article is especially helpful. It’s addressed to the attendees of COP, but the attendees of COP already believe (almost unanimously) that adaptation has equal importance to mitigation. And it’s one of the only forums where poorer & disaffected nations are given a real opportunity.

I’m also not sure that anyone anywhere earnestly believes that climate change is an extinction level event that’ll render the entire planet unliveable. Certainly not the people at COP.

The piece seems unnecessarily broadly combative and contrarian.

> I’m also not sure that anyone anywhere earnestly believes that climate change is an extinction level event that’ll render the entire planet unliveable. Certainly not the people at COP.

A lot of people do believe that, unfortunately. Decades worth of the most alarmist coverage possible sure didn't help the public awareness.

Now, people at COP? Hopefully not. But COP doesn't end with the people at COP. And there are a lot of people in this very thread whose reaction to "climate change cannot cause extinction of humankind" is shock and disbelief.

>A lot of people do believe that, unfortunately.

No they don't.

If everyone already agrees with it, why would it be viewed as combative and contrarian?

> So I urge that community, at COP30 and beyond, to make a strategic pivot: prioritize the things that have the greatest impact on human welfare.

Like addressing the exponential growth of income inequality? Unsurprisingly not mentioned at all. Might mean that billionaires have to give up their carbon credit purchases and then how could they be dismissive about their own emissions?

Bill is one of the better ones with his personal capital allocation. He could've just tried to create the fastest sailboat racing team or something. But I find it extremely difficult to take the wealthy seriously when they speak about carbon emissions and climate change. It’s like hearing an arsonist lecture on fire safety.

> Thirty years ago, when I was running Microsoft, I wrote a long memo to employees about a major strategic pivot we had to make: embracing the internet in every product we made.

Is this the one that lead to the term "embrace, extend, extinguish"?

>Is this the one that lead to the term "embrace, extend, extinguish"?

It's the one that gave us IE6.

Curious to see who are the first who will boycott MS/Azure/etc because of this.

He is mentioning geologic hydrogen as a new energy source. Surely that is a fossil fuel?

It's a fossil fuel, but burning it doesn't produce a greenhouse gas. It's similar to nuclear in the sense that it's a limited resource, but doesn't produce emissions.

Perhaps technically, but it's a zero-carbon one which is what matters.

Yep, like uranium is from the fossils of ancient uranium golems.

My Kagi-fu is failing me. IIRC people have drilled into underground reserves and piped it to a generator in farming areas. Its relatively low cost.

You cant throw money at the problem and buy your way out of damaging the environment by participating in carbon credit scams. Plus the whole write up feels like a giant opinion piece designed to maintain the status quo. Thats what you want if you're one of the richest in the world right?

There is really no source that indicates greenhouse gas emissions are in decline unless the writer means over a very short, even immaterial period of time. With that opening gambit being either disengenusous or dishonest, it's hard to credit any of the deductions that follow. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Fourth tough truth about climate change: humans need LLM AI like a fish needs a bicycle and Microsoft is helping burn down the world to give it to them, reversing any progress that was made in reducing emissions and climate change in order to pump the stock price in the AI bubble.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/05/20/1116327/ai-energ...

>Given the direction AI is headed—more personalized, able to reason and solve complex problems on our behalf, and everywhere we look—it’s likely that our AI footprint today is the smallest it will ever be. According to new projections published by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in December, by 2028 more than half of the electricity going to data centers will be used for AI. At that point, AI alone could consume as much electricity annually as 22% of all US households.

Gates isn't involved in M$ anymore last time I checked.

I actually really liked the article.

I'm rather shocked because this article reads very similar to the messaging Jordan Peterson and Bjorn Lomborg for like 2 years.

This feels like someone in a marathon deciding to quit because they just ran really well for the last 10 minutes, with the assumption that since they were running really fast there’s no reason to think they won’t keep running fast. It’s deeply flawed logic.

The other issue is that while he might be right, the worst and biggest consequences of being wrong will not affect Bill. Or, frankly, anyone reading this comment.

It’s such a complicated problem for us humans because we often struggle to conceptualize beyond our own tribes, let alone humans who won’t exist for decades.

But the problem is that IF climate scientists are right - and other than a few cheery cherry picked stats, Bill has no evidence saying otherwise - then the longer we do nothing the bigger the impact.

Will humanity die? Probably not. But will it drastically affect QoL for nearly all humans on the planet save the 1%? Probably.

Right, but he knows this and he's drawing up his knowledge and solutions. You can point this out, but what solutions do you offer? And I'm sure you can paste some articles with solutions, but I mean actual solutions that people would be willing to change for, not hypotheticals.

Unasked-for meta complaint about the site, not the article itself:

I hate that thing where you visit a blog post (judging from the URL) yet the blog post is seemingly endless (judging from the scrollbar), and when you scroll down you hop into the next blog post (URL just changes).

The scrollbar is useless in that case, I can't gauge the real length of the article. The Gates Foundation has more money than God, maybe spend a tiny little bit of it on a good UI designer, yeah?

> The Gates Foundation has more money than God, maybe spend a tiny little bit of it on a good UI designer, yeah?

I think it's precisely the problem: they hired an expensive designer, and the designer, for the obscene amount of money they were getting, felt like they had to do something special...

It specially crashes my browser when I try to read it, and specially fails to save to the Wayback Machine (the captures there are blank pages). However I found Gates making what looks to be the same argument on a different site:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/10/06/1124265/bill-gat...

”Unfortunately, the doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.”

How do we change incentives to be long-term aligned rather than counter-productive, anxious short-termism?

I'm afraid that humanity doesn't have sufficiently advanced incentive-engineering technology for that.

Solving climate change is really really hard. Solving mass media being biased towards alarmism and allergic to nuance, decision-makers in politics and at corporations favoring short-term thinking? Hard enough to make solving climate change look easy.

>How do we change incentives to be long-term aligned rather than counter-productive, anxious short-termism?

Easy? You develop technology that makes it win-win for everyone. If you give me a choice to improve my QoL or reduce my cost AND reduce my carbon footprint at the same time, I make that choice.

If I have a choice between reducing carbon footprint, but my QoL goes down or costs go up, I won't choose it.

Gates, who is not a climate scientist, not even a scientist, spreading misinformation to try to make money for his investments just like he always does.

can you elaborate what part of his post is misinformation and why? I'm no fan of the dude for many reasons, but making money doesn't seem to be on his priority list as of lately

try googling Gates investment climate change

I did, it says Gates has invested in companies and stands to make money. Specifically Breakthrough Energy, a venture capital firm backing clean energy startups, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, his philanthropy foundation. Is it supposed to something about scientists and how he can afford some really good ones to tell him sciencey things about science so when Bill Gates says something sciencey, we should probably pay more attention to it than random HN comment that presented no credentials?

He really was one of the first techies to project genius when he really just had antisocial behavior - sort of paving the way for folks like Musk and Thiel. There is such a distortion field around Gates that has been meticulously crafted for years, really since his rebranding after those antitrust trials that ruined his image.

'Investing' in mass media outlets helped craft his image and you're right, he's not a genius in any way shape or form. Antisocial is the perfect description.

So you didn’t read the article?

He is saying: instead of focusing on climate change which is not killing anyone today, let's focus on vaccines against diseases, which are still unfortunately killing people. Today. Apparently countries are less willing to spend $ for organizations providing vaccines.

Questionable how efficient these orgs are, etc., but data shows that more people than ever are being vaccinated and this helps [0].

You can like it or not, but a vaccine against measles helps more than a solar panel to keep a child alive and costs way less.

[0]: https://www.who.int/news/item/24-04-2024-global-immunization...

[flagged]

> > Tell us some tough truths about Epstein island!

Rich people want to get laid with young , attractive girls who are also well mannered and somewhat cultured and socially mature

Epstein was the curator of that list, kinda like an elite's elite escort agency.

Is the above so hard to grasp and reconcile with? The whole thing has been blown way out of proprtion

> @BillGates: Tell us some tough truths about Epstein island!

There's no evidence Gates was ever on Epstein's island, so it is unlikely he has anything interesting to say about it.

The only known connection Gates has to Epstein is a few business meetings.

> But Kudos on acknowledging the growing evidence that the climate change movement is mostly about ideology, money, power and redistributing wealth.

The article did no such thing.

Please don't post flamebait or take threads off on generic tangents on HN. We're trying for something different here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Before I read the article, Ill summarize the facts that seem to be hard and true about climate :

- we are nearing or at +1.5C above pre-industrial baseline

- human carbon burning CO2 emissions are at a max and likely long plateau

- mean temp is rising by around +0.3C per decade

- we will be nearing +2.0C in around 15 years, 2040 give or take

- warming is mainly caused by us humans burning carbon, emitting CO2 and some CH4

- if we reach net-zero, we will be at peak CO2 and thus peak heat, for a long while

In addition, the only economically viable way to bring down the temp seems to be deliberate pollution by emitting sulphur or other particles aka Solar Radiation Management to brighten clouds, reduce heat absorption by the ocean. Volcanoes and shipping fuels have essentially proven that this brings down the temperature, in the short term.

We geo-engineered our way into this hot mess, and we will need to geo-engineer our way out of it.

If the temp reaches +2.5 or +3C .. I think that means quite a lot of crop failure, forced migration, geopolitical tension, lack of stable food supply.. and death to a large number of humans seems to follow logically from that.

So, now Ill look at the article to see if any of these tough truths were mentioned .. sorta-kinda no-so-much, it seems like he thinks things are not that urgent. ?!?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com