(12af) Bill Gates, David Attenborough and Climate Change

Bill Gates

Bill Gates. Such an authority. He discusses e.g. climate change as I do and he is interviewed while I am losing friends. But, as my mind goes on and on, turning round in circles, I too must write this down so my brain concentrate on something and to avoid I become mad. And yes, it is also important that people show that they agree with investments away from fossil fuels to prevent those who are opposed have the loudest voice and win the argument. Thus, I recognise Mr Gates has major opposition from among others:

• those who oppose vaccination (in which he plays an important role) and deny climate change is real as for many the consequences are too big to accept while they often don't want to pay for it and think that reinvesting in old solutions is cheaper and more profitable while building a new nuclear plant costs billions of euros although smaller local units may be possible and for space travel on condition we re-use space shuttles;

• those who don't mind climate change is real and accept this pandemic or they do mind but accept it cannot be stopped as it is about to happen whereby it will proof the existence of a God in which they believe so they will no longer be ridiculed but instead may be accepted as leaders. The trouble is that they do exactly the opposite of what they should do and refuse any life-saving measures while they blame innocent people are the reason for God's anger but they claim to please God. They say that God wants climate change and thus they act against actions to reverse the worst while they oppose vaccination because they claim a microchip is injected in us as prophesied; indeed, it may be an easy way to know who was vaccinated. Still, these same people wouldn't mind when chips are used to keep migrants outside their country;

• those who work in fossil fuel industries who are understandably afraid to lose the job they will eventually lose as e.g. most petrol stations are now automated and gas is transported via pipes to use in homes. But, the worse are those who fill their pockets with investments in the fossil fuel industry and for too long even claimed climate change is a hoax so they can continue their investments such as in the Arctic as they think they will be able to escape disasters with their money. And thus, investments in fossil fuels continue even today because, I accept, simply walking out of such investments would be disastrous for e.g. pension funds as investment funds waited too long to divert away into other industries; but also because the individuals who decide to continue these investments get nice dividends from fossil fuel companies (and weapon and mining industries in which they likely also invest). 

> Use some of wealth for the good of society

As Bill Gates says, the Covid-19 pandemic is probably nothing in comparison with climate change. Still, I think he is too optimistic when he says that this mainly affects poorer countries because that results in more migration and as a result the rise of extremism in developed countries, even among "the left" who say they cannot understand why migrants risk their children's lives to come to Europe. Thus, politicians introduce stricter rules to make it more difficult to accept people as legal migrant, not only stricter for economic migrants but also for refugees who try to escape dictatorship as economic and political migrants are often related, certainly when climate change brings devastation. An example is the suggestion that those who want to migrate out their country should apply in the embassy in the country where they live while this is nearly impossible in dictatorships - and we know. 

Good illustration how one disaster becomes bigger than the previous as a result of the mess humans made - not sure who made this picture

Further, as the interviewer suggest, why is Bill Gates now looking to governments for solutions while in the past he lobbied for less regulations to fill his own pockets to become at this moment one of the five richest people on this planet, ever? People are not stupid, one reason why many are angry. The wealth of the richest people is now many times the combined debts of many countries and growing during this pandemic, and thus the rich can now return a substantial part of their wealth to society by investing in climate change actions while they can still remain wealthy. An example, as Bill Gates suggests, it is important that the production of new generation of goods such as electric cars increase so prices can go down. But, this is only correct when production output is sufficiently high, that includes sufficient material to build them are available. Therefore, Mr Gates with his huge fortune may finance car manufacturers to convert their production lines towards the new generation of cars so this conversion is affordable for companies. In addition, he may also help people and countries to invest in recycling factories so materials (such as those needed in batteries) can be recovered in an affordable way. This way companies don't need to sell at expensive prices to re-earn their investments; Bill Gates can demand fair prices before companies receive money. This way, everyone is a winner. Or, he can stop reducing his taxes and instead pay them completely so society has money to invest. But, the billionaires really need to return their money into the economy to avoid further anger. 

Otherwise, if the rich don't want to sacrifice anything of their own wealth (and some understand this is needed), than they too either face climate change when too little is invested or they face the anger of the population when people and governments have to pay the full costs of climate change actions; scenarios that are possible when people have to feel the financial consequences of their fossil fuel use while they can't afford it. Yes, already Bill Gates is the target of many angry voices. And no, don't become even richer by helping people because that is an investment. 

> Production of green energy

Further, whatever governments try, there seems always a power that can reverse actions when those actions democratise the energy for the common people away from huge profits for companies and shareholders. An example: in Belgium, people who installed solar panels are punished as Belgium's Constitutional Court ruled against a democratically-elected Parliament that people cannot reverse their energy meter when they send electricity produced by their solar panels to the grid; the meter can only be used to measure how much customers must pay for the electricity they take from the grid and that is produced by electricity companies and by solar panels. I think more than one meter to measure energy consumption by households but also to measure the electricity send to the grid by those same households may be a solution. 

I am also against what the video with the interview with Bill Gates shows: fields full with solar panels so even less space is left for nature that becomes already very precious as humans continue to destroy our planet. The solution: solar panels on roofs but (one day) even windows can be used to generate electricity that is also closer to the users so less wiring is needed, thus cost-effective. 

The UFO in Brussels, ideal to install solar panels to generate energy for the surrounding area

Similar with wind energy whereby I can accept that some offshore wind farms are needed to generate lots of electricity that can be used to power heavy equipment such as trains. But, alternatives are also possible such as smaller windmills placed on the roof of buildings or even integrated in buildings but also more elegant (smaller) equipment that may even function to decorate cities; believe thus dream and they can be invented. 

We should also not forget that water can generate electricity, not mainly by huge dams with their reservoir that destroy large areas but also by many smaller infrastructures along rivers.  

Thus, the combined power of many smaller sun, wind and water installations in addition to a few large scale renewable energy production sites to generate lots of energy to use locally but also to interchange between cities and countries. This may even prevent conflicts such as between Sudan and Egypt against Ethiopia that builds a huge dam on the Blue Nile that may severely affect water flow to Sudan and Egypt: a smaller dam would allow water energy production in the wet season while in the dry season Ethiopia can use wind and son to produce energy. This way water continues to flow in a natural way while all countries may benefit from energy production if they share and without a war. 

> Storage of energy

Add to this more equipment with their own batteries whereby new kinds of batteries such as sodium-ion rechargeable batteries are under development. Product such as TV, lights and even plugs may have their own battery that can be charged during the day so we don't need one large room with a huge battery. Compare with smartphones and computers and electric cars that have their own batteries. In addition, equipments become more energy efficient and thus need less energy. This is called progress. But, I'm sufficiently realistic to understand that at this moment we still need old technologies to add to our energy need, technologies that should be gradually replaced with new technologies.  

But also a combination of new techniques such as scientists (who believe in the capability of humans to improve and find solutions for problems) developed solar panels that produce hydrogen gas. Only 20 panels are needed and the gas can be captured in large tanks and be used when needed, even during the night. It takes energy to store the gas under high pressure in tanks but a normal solar panel or small wind turbine, or even a little fossil fuel may be used as energy to compress the gas after which it can be used to generate energy. Thus, production unit and kind of battery to store energy in one. 

> Energy industry opposed to democratization of markets

If the energy industry needs to continue to make large profits while they don't want and even prevent that ordinary people earn money from electricity they produce with their own solar panels, maybe those companies should be allowed to force people to pay rent to energy companies for solar panels those companies install on the house of people. In addition, force people to pay energy companies for the use of the electricity the panels on their own house produce. This way the energy sector may even install forcibly solar panels on every roof as that would earn them money. But, at least this will not destroy nature with solar panels placed on the ground while roofs can be used. Let societies become absurd if that is the only way to save our planet from being completely build-up; of course, people will not like such a solution. 

I've written before how I think international solidarity is the best way to help each other to reduce the global carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases footprint and thus prevent catastrophe. And while Bill Gates says that reduction of travel by airplanes will have only a minor effect on CO2 emissions, he says this because he wants to continue using his private plane. Still, governments and organisations are now discussing the introduction of environmental taxes, including extra costs to tickets in the hope people will travel less by planes than before, because common people will feel such a cost while the rich or those who travel for companies feel this less. Yes, the price to use airplanes should reflect more the actual price whereby companies shouldn't be allowed to reduce the costs at the expense of society, ie via reduction of taxes. This way the number of business travels will probably reduce to a minimum while private jets should be expensive as they too need to reflect the real cost divided over fewer people without the possibility to reduce the costs and even an extra fossil fuel cost to discourage their use. Still, I think holidays via airplanes should remain possible as this is likely less polluting than when everyone travels by car that will result in even more traffic jams and thus even more pollution. And, cleaner fuels for planes as Bill Gates suggests and extra costs for dirty planes are also essential to enforce charges. 

But, I think it is hypocrisy to tell governments they should act unless that means to create the right conditions such as laws that encourage people to install solar panels while the private sector can install them. It is hypocrisy to say air travel pollutes little when this is not to harm one's own interests but otherwise say that people should feel the real cost after a financial crisis about 10 years ago and now a pandemic that impoverished many but enriched the rich even more. That is also the reason why people are angry towards persons who became billionaires and multimillionaires due to their talents that most people don't have to invent something non-existent and even unimaginable but also because of tax benefits for which they lobbied that were originally granted to stimulate companies but became parasites for society while they show little solidarity as they don't act in the same way they say ordinary people should such as fly with normal instead of private planes. 

To be cynical, Bill Gates may tell governments and the general public to invest in wind and solar energy and clean cars, likely because he has shares in those sectors and thus can further enrich himself when people buy those products, even when prices may go down due to mass production. Instead, he could decide to help people with the installation of these new technologies by giving away grants to those who can't finance the transition. Because, becoming even richer, no, that damages the economy too much as the rest becomes poorer with increasing inflation and wages under pressure; societies sometimes even need controlled deflation and controlled changes in what people earn.

Sir David Attenborough

Sir David Attenborough, famous naturalist who made many nature documentaries, in a message that is straight forward: we must act now to counter our destructive actions on our world in which we live or face the consequences such as the collapse of cities and even societies - history shows this happened before.

 > Example: (over)fishing

We know we over-fish oceans, seas and rivers. Only a five years stop on fish consumption can greatly refill waters. Or, at least a strict control (creates work) on the use of forbidden netting and severe punishment for those who use them (and not that organisations such as Greenpeace need to act unlawfully to protect marine reserves against illegal fishing) whereby international waters are under UN protection so users can be held accountable for their actions; no longer excuses these waters belong to no-one and everyone. In case we want fish, local fishers instead of an industrial fishing industry can also reduce excess fishing. The price of fish may rise relative to income but as a result, fishers don't need to overfish to earn a decent living while consumers know again the real price and will show more respect to their food. 

It is not only climate change but more general over consumption that results in what most people see as environmental destruction such as a decline in numbers of birds because of the destruction of their habitats. Another example is Covid-19 and other diseases such as AIDS and Ebola that are a result of the destruction of forests so we come in contact with animals who may carry for us unknown diseases, animals who have to live in smaller areas closer to other animals so exchanges of microorganisms are more likely while a reduced biodiversity results in fewer predators to eliminate animals with diseases. A chain reaction that can be activated when a critical negative threshold is overstepped. 

But, as sir Attenborough says, due to our growing knowledge, the future can be better. If only people who agree with a new future would speak louder than those who shout it is all a hoax, politicians and business leaders would understand that change is welcomed by people although they start to understand that even houses of the rich and famous can become victim of fires. And yes, in this story the strongest shoulders in terms of people but also countries have to carry the largest burden so an affordable transition is possible, both for common people and poor countries, but an orderly transition that will also benefit the rich. Solidarity is the word.