The triumphant posts of conspiracy theorists claiming that climate change is insignificant can basically be ignored. They only prove their aversion to the written word, because In the very first sentences, Gates confirms that, that it continues to regard climate change as a serious problem and calls for efforts to achieve carbon neutrality.
But if that is the case, why has its publication been met with such strong criticism from many supporters of climate change mitigation? Read, for example this post by Prof. Michael E. Mann, a renowned expert on climate change, in which he develops an almost total critique of the approach proposed by Gates.
Gates dared to address the issue of the effectiveness of funds allocated to combating climate change. What is more, he did so in a way that was very uncomfortable for those who believe that combating climate change is synonymous with protecting human rights. In his article, he raises the issues of improving healthcare for the world's poorest communities and helping them build a resilient agricultural economy. In his opinion, the search for adaptation solutions should be given higher priority than it has been so far. At the same time, he does not allow himself to be forced to answer the meaningless question „Which is more important: mitigation or adaptation?” Instead, he says loudly that we cannot focus solely on mitigation; adaptation is also important. This is probably the main „sin” for which so many stones have been thrown at him.
At the same time, Gates' publication strikes a different chord. Much of his text exudes a huge dose of techno-optimism: humanity has coped with previous problems, civilization will surely survive, innovation is happening faster than ever before... Even if this is true, the climate crisis is a threat that exceeds by an order of magnitude everything that not only human civilization, but also homo sapiens as a species, has faced so far. Unfortunately, the avalanche of examples of technological solutions mentioned in the article mixes those that actually bring beneficial effects on a large scale (such as the spectacular drop in the cost and improvement in the efficiency of photovoltaic panels) with numerous ones that are in the experimental phase or will never (or at least not in the next few decades) have commercial significance (such as nuclear fusion or direct carbon dioxide capture from the atmosphere).
I consider one of Gates' proposals to be particularly important. It concerns increasing efforts to reduce the so-called green premium to zero, i.e., the additional cost that must be incurred to make a given technology, product, or material zero-emission. We cannot expect zero-emission cement to become widespread if its cost is 138% higher than that produced using traditional methods. In the case of steel, we are already closer to achieving price parity, as steel produced using climate-neutral methods is only 28% more expensive than traditional steel (both values are quoted from Gates' article). Reducing the green premium to zero is a prerequisite for low-carbon solutions to be widely adopted and effectively replace traditional, harmful ones. This is possible thanks to further technological development, but it can be consciously accelerated if investors receive appropriate incentives, which can result from appropriate public policies.
Where should the funds for developing low-carbon technologies come from? Unfortunately, Gates does not address this issue. It is a pity. Perhaps subsidies that countries allocate to maintaining fossil fuel consumption would be a suitable source? In 2022, they amounted to $7 trillion, which corresponded to approximately 7.11% of global GDP..
I am full of admiration for the ferment that Gates managed to stir up with his publication. Despite excessive techno-optimism and the omission of several important issues, his article provokes thought, not only about our attitude toward climate change as the greatest problem facing humanity, but also about how to make our actions effective 😊
Polish
English