Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ZeroGravitas 3774 days ago
Bill's focus on new tech still seems odd to me.

Maybe he's thought about it, and as a famous geek thinks that the number one thing he can do is champion tech innovation.

But he specifically talks about increasing energy efficiency. An obvious opening to talk about carbon taxes that bake efficiency decisions into everything we buy (and provides a ready made market for new, low-carbon tech).

Or he talks about coal, again a great opening to talk about removing subsidies from that industry and getting the workers retrained in something else.

And he seems dismissive of solar, like those will only help African farmers when the sun is shining and so are barely worth even thinking about.

In general he seems too focussed on getting carbon to 0, and not enough focussed on the low hanging fruit which, if solved with todays existing tech and policy instruments, would extend the runway we have to find breakthrough tech before our world descends into anarchy and global warfare.

Just swapping natural gas for coal gives us much ability to burn fossil fuels, since it halves the carbon per energy output. Might not be as cool as a fusion reactor, but every carbon molecule counts.

2 comments

Gates doesn't govern any countries and he's not in charge of any global policies. Also, he is not superman and he doesn't have infinite resources. He's just trying to find niches where a rich geek can make a difference. Child vaccination was a good example.

Significantly, he's trying to do practical things to improve the lives of poor people in the third world, as opposed to founding libraries or building more William Gates computer buildings at elite universities.

It's fair to judge what he does against what he could do, but it's unreasonable to judge him for what he can't do.

I don't think anybody would judge him badly for not doing what he's unable to do. Of course not, just go back to Hume's "ought implies can".

I do think, however, that it does make sense to question whether he might be wasting resources and effort.

Agreed, and that is exactly what he does: the foundation has an annual Fail Fest to try to learn from its mistakes.

The website says: "Some of the projects we fund will fail. We not only accept that, we expect it — because we think an essential role of philanthropy is to make bets on promising solutions that governments and businesses can’t afford to make. As we learn which bets pay off, we have to adjust our strategies and share the results so everyone can benefit."

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Informatio...

I think the point is that those sorts of smaller innovations can be a trap. As he says at the start, even reducing CO2 emissions by 50% isn't enough. By focusing on low hanging fruit, we might feel like we're making a difference, and lose the urgency to search for more innovative solutions.

I'm sure Bill supports anything that can reduce CO2 emissions, but I expect his feeling is that we don't need more encouragement to look for little efficiencies; rather we need to find a big solution. Or maybe we need encouragement on both fronts, but he didn't want to dilute the main point of this particular essay by focusing on existing tech.

(That said, he does talk also about improved energy storage and power lines and such, things that would build on existing clean energy sources.)