WORMS 3D PARA WINDOWS 7 KEYGEN
And they’re like, What? We didn’t cause these emissions. I just imagine a phone call to the Indians in 2050 where you say, Please, please, build half as much shelter because of the green premium. I feel because it creates high-paying jobs and because it answers the question of-well, if the US gets rid of its 14%, big deal: what about the growing percent that comes from India as it’s providing basic capabilities to its citizens? I’m asking for something that’s like the size of the National Institutes of Health budget. And so I don’t believe that even a rich country will do this by brute force.īut in the near term, you may be able to get tens of billions of dollars for the innovation agenda. If you try and do this with brute force, just paying the current premiums for clean technology, the economic cost is gigantic and the economic displacement is gigantic. So there is political will.īut there’s a lot of interplay. And they’re the ones who will be alive when the world either is massively suffering from these problems or is not, depending on what gets done. Even more encouraging is that if you poll young voters, millennials, both who identify as Republican and Democrats, the interest in this issue is very high. Q: How do you feel about our chances of making real political progress, particularly in in the US, in the moment we find ourselves in?Ī: I am optimistic. And so to get that sector going, you need to do some basic R&D, and you need to actually start having purchase requirements or funds set aside to pay that premium, both from government and perhaps companies and individuals as well.īut, you know, we need a lot of countries, not just a few, to engage in this. You need like a $300-a-ton type of carbon tax. Even carbon taxes at low costs per ton aren’t enough to get clean steel on the learning curve. There’s no market demand for clean steel.
Take things like clean steel: it doesn’t have other benefits. Here, there’s no doubt you need to get government policy in a huge way. And it was more of a political challenge in getting the marginal pricing and the funds raised and the vaccine coverage up, not the scientific piece. I realized that for a lot of these diseases, including diarrhea and pneumonia, there actually were vaccines. It’s more natural for me to find a great scientist and back multiple approaches.īut the reason I smile when you say it is because in our global health work, there’s a whole decade where I’m recognizing that to have the impact we want, we’re going to have to work with both the donor governments in a very deep way and the recipient governments that actually create these primary health-care systems.Īnd my naïve view at the beginning had been “Hey, I’ll just create a malaria vaccine and other people will worry about getting that out into the field.” That clearly wasn’t a good idea. In general, if you can do innovation without having to get involved in the political issues, I always prefer that. Was there a shift in your thinking, or was it a deliberate choice to lay out the policy side in your book?Ī: No, that’s absolutely fair. Q: In the past, it seemed you would distance yourself from the policy side of climate change, which had led to some criticisms that you are overly focused on innovation.
This interview has been edited for space and clarity.
Gates is an investor either personally or through Breakthrough Energy Ventures in several of the companies he mentions below, including Beyond Meats, Carbon Engineering, Impossible Foods, Memphis Meats, and Pivot Bio. I spoke to Gates in December about his new book, the limits of his optimism, and how his thinking on climate change has evolved. And while he consistently says we can develop the necessary technology and we can avoid a disaster it’s less clear how hopeful he is that we will. He dedicates an entire chapter to describing just how hard a problem climate change is to address. Gates describes himself as an optimist, but it’s a constrained type of optimism. Gates calls for governments to quintuple their annual investments in clean tech, which would add up to $35 billion in the US. The closing chapters of the book lay out long lists of ways that nations could accelerate the shift, including high carbon prices, clean electricity standards, clean fuel standards, and far more funding for research and development. But Gates also answers some of the criticisms that his climate prescriptions have been overly focused on “energy miracles” at the expense of aggressive government policies. He stresses that innovation will make it cheaper and more politically feasible for every nation to cut or prevent emissions.
0 kommentar(er)
