Bill Gates says that capitalism cannot save us from climate change

[zenkai]

My charitable giving is not impressive. What's impressive is people who give to charities who have to sacrifice something to give it to him. In my family, we don't even hesitate to buy yet another airplane. But there are people who have to choose, do I go out to dinner? Or do I give this $20 to my church? That's a very different decision than I make. Those are the people that impress me.

Exactly, I assume it was gates who stated it.

[zenkai]

You're saying this like it's a condemnation of Bill Gates, when Gates has said exactly this more than once;

http://imgur.com/gallery/YDuoHdr

I wasn't condemning Bill Gates, I wouldn't condemn any person who gives to charity. I was responding to people who think its a big deal he is charitable, and just pointing out its pretty easy to do when you don't have to sacrifice anything.

- - - Updated - - -

On a side note I'm going to state, I promise you all if I ever got as Rich as Gates I would pay off peoples student loans for my charity cause lol

[Puupi]

Capitalism is investing money with an objective of achieving monetary gains. Gates already stated that he didn't expect to make a financial profit off this investment, and the fact that capitalists in general avoid investing in green energy suggests that Gates is correct.

If you want to argue that he made an investment, it's an investment towards sustainability, which will yield something other than financial profit.

I argued he was investing, not spending. Those are two completely different things. Investing is capitalism, whether or not the investment is profitable.

[Raelbo]

Isnt it a natural occurance anyway? We might have speed things up a bit, I have no doubt about that, but it's something that will eventually happen anyway?

Natural change happens slowly. This allows life to adapt to it. The faster the process happens, the more life forms will die as they struggle to adapt.

Think of it like bringing a car to a halt. If you use the brakes in a nice calm manner, you can safely transition from 100mph to standstill. If, on the other hand, you choose to slow the vehicle by crashing into a concrete pylon, the results are far more catastrophic.

- - - Updated - - -

I argued he was investing, not spending. Those are two completely different things. Investing is capitalism, whether or not the investment is profitable.

According to google, the definition of capitalism is "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state"

I may not be an economist, but the idea of investing without at least the expectation or hope of a profit doesn't seem to fit the idea of capitalism at all.

[Heathy]

hmm i've always assumed fossil fuel consumption will continue until there is none left, there are a large amount of ppl that work in the industry and if it simply went tits up over night these ppl would have issues finding new employment when they may only be capable of working in that specific industry.

I have no numbers but imagine one day a new energy source is revealed and we can stop using petrol and diesel immediately, well my area has 3 petrochemical refineries, actually the best place to work around here is in one of those refineries.. if they are no longer useful, where the fuck do all those ppl get jobs, imo those 3 refineries closing would be devastating.

to me it seems far to ingrained, its not just the engineers that manage the day to day of these refineries its the mechanical engineers like my step dad that go around on shut downs and earn a large portion of their yearly wage when they happen. then the thousands of gas stations that also have workers.

i don't think there is an easy way to go from what it is now, to something else without a huge amount of ppl simply becoming unemployed. what about all the automobiles, suddenly your car is completely useless and is worth a fraction of its cost in scrap.

i don't see these industries disappearing overnight, if at all. ever. simply because there is no way you can have a complete automobile recall, along with mass retraining of staff running the current facilities. i doubt bill gates even has the funds to pull something like that off.

[metzger84]

What a god damn hypocrite. Get stuffed, Bill.

[Puupi]

According to google, the definition of capitalism is "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state"

I may not be an economist, but the idea of investing without at least the expectation or hope of a profit doesn't seem to fit the idea of capitalism at all.

The key part here is the private ownership vs. state ownership, not whether is it directly financially profitable or not. If he had just given the money to the industry, it wouldn't be capitalism. But he invested, bought shares.

[Raelbo]

hmm i've always assumed fossil fuel consumption will continue until there is none left, there are a large amount of ppl that work in the industry and if it simply went tits up over night these ppl would have issues finding new employment when they may only be capable of working in that specific industry.

I have no numbers but imagine one day a new energy source is revealed and we can stop using petrol and diesel immediately, well my area has 3 petrochemical refineries, actually the best place to work around here is in one of those refineries.. if they are no longer useful, where the fuck do all those ppl get jobs, imo those 3 refineries closing would be devastating.

True. Changes like this don't tend to happen overnight though. Whatever happens, at some stage the world will start scaling down production of fossil fuels, and those people working in the industry will be absorbed into the economy. Since energy will still be needed, and whatever the new technologies are will almost certainly require a workforce, the nett economic effect would not change much.

For a long time the world used horses as transport. That entire industry has all but disappeared since fossil fuel powered cars came onto the scene. It didn't cause any major economic catastrophe.

[Gheld]

Old.

Scientists explained revolution overthrowing capitalist governments is the only way to save the planet years ago already.

Most of the revolutionaries are granola eating hippies.

Granola requires extensive agricultural resources to produce.

Planet would still be fucked.

Also I'm afraid to say it but nobody who has any inkling of what constitutes the scientific process can call anthropogenic climate change anyhting greater than hypothetical. It's hypothetical. It's a hypothesis. Until climatologists can predict rainfall figures and the mean global temperature year after year to within 99.99999% accuracy it will continue to be nothing more than a hypothesis. Precise mathematical predictions are requisite to call something theory.

So calling for a violent revolution with only hypothetical observations to back it up is beyond irresponsible.

Not to mention communist governments don't have a very good track record with the environment either.

Global warming. It's hypothetical. It's a "too big to fix" red herring that keeps people from focusing on more immediate environmental concerns that could be easily addressed via policy decisions (which coincidentally would effect industry more than anybody else).

That's why you find big industry dollars funding both sides of the climate change debate. Because it keeps people from saying "WELL SHIT, WHY DON'T WE BAN PLASTIC BOTTLES?"

Fuck emission targets. Ban single use containers. You'll save precious GHG emissions simply by preventing the need for manufacturing and transport of the containers themselves. Even 30 years ago you didn't have all these plastic bottles, and everything shipping in cardboard boxes that may or may not be recycled but are inefficient to recycle anyways. Reusable glass bottles, reusable wooden shipping crates.

It's something we can fucking fix... right now... that will have an immediate positive impact on the planet. So why are we talking about anything else?

[Raelbo]

The key part here is the private ownership vs. state ownership, not whether is it directly financially profitable or not. If he had just given the money to the industry, it wouldn't be capitalism. But he invested, bought shares.

Nah, sorry, I don't accept that because it just makes no logical sense. Yes, private vs state ownership is an important element of capitalism, but it can't be the sole defining attribute when every definition of capitalism I have ever seen includes profit as a major driving force. It is what motivates private ownership.

You're talking about some sort of altruistic capitalism, and a quick google search seems to indicate that the two concepts are incompatible.

[Daelak]

The key part here is the private ownership vs. state ownership, not whether is it directly financially profitable or not. If he had just given the money to the industry, it wouldn't be capitalism. But he invested, bought shares.

And Gates is advocating all types of investment, with government investment being the largest one into a myriad of different R&D projects, because the private sector cannot stomach the risk or even have the resources that the US does. State investment brings about better ROI than any private investment ever could, read history.

[Torgent]

gates uses his money on things that only help people in the short term.

if he was smart, he'd invest into finding some type of new renewable energy, or wireless transmission of energy.

things that help everyone on the grand scheme is better than helping some village in the middle of nowhere that doesn't even really need outside intervention when they could easily go back to hunting and gathering like they did for thousands of years before rich white people started feeding them.

Only uses his money on the short term....You know he is heavily involved in Malaria prevention and treatment, right? That's a bit more than short term. Then you come in with your ignorant last sentence and just show us that you have no idea what you're saying.

[Puupi]

Nah, sorry, I don't accept that because it just makes no logical sense. Yes, private vs state ownership is an important element of capitalism, but it can't be the sole defining attribute when every definition of capitalism I have ever seen includes profit as a major driving force. It is what motivates private ownership.

You're talking about some sort of altruistic capitalism, and a quick google search seems to indicate that the two concepts are incompatible.

No, I'm saying there are other kinds of profits that can be gained other than direct ROI (return on investment) gain. And most of those gains have nothing to do with altruism.

[minteK917]

PS. What does capitalism have to do with this anyway?

Did you even read what he said or just stopped at capitalism? What hes saying is that contrary to popular belief private sector is never the top of innovation, because capitalism is not about being the most innovative, its about making profit. They arent mutually exclusive, but they rarely connect, which is what Gates is saying. As he says, US R&D is always ahead of the curve for example, because its not for profit. Thats why since WW2 we owe most of our advancement to Military and various public government funded research, because they all lose money by the shitload and dont expect to make large direct profit.

[Raelbo]

No, I'm saying there are other kinds of profits that can be gained other than direct ROI (return on investment) gain. And most of those gains have nothing to do with altruism.

As I understand it, by definition, the only kind of profit that capitalism cares about is financial profit for the investor.

Yes you could argue that Bill Gates is investing in the future of the species, and that it's not entirely altruistic because it means his descendants will have a better future. But because the nett financial impact on him is expected to be a loss, (while the nett benefits are shared by humanity as a whole), I don't really think that his actions should be classified as capitalist in nature at all.

[Puupi]

As I understand it, by definition, the only kind of profit that capitalism cares about is financial profit for the investor.

Yes you could argue that Bill Gates is investing in the future of the species, and that it's not entirely altruistic because it means his descendants will have a better future. But because the nett financial impact on him is expected to be a loss, (while the nett benefits are shared by humanity as a whole), I don't really think that his actions should be classified as capitalist in nature at all.

Again, focus on the word direct.

Companies do lots of investments that are direct losses. The point of these investments are to protect future profits or shape the markets. Which is exactly what Gates is doing.

[Longview]

haha good luck battling late stage global capitalism on anything ever

the fact that people still argue about whether global warming is real (in this very thread too) speaks volumes. things aren't gonna change anytime soon. time and time again we've seen big oil corporations unwilling to change. what are they gonna do, stop selling refined oil? no way!

[saffi]

And yet, the biggest threat facing climate change is meat and dairy consumption...not fucking CO2.

[I Cannot Fap To That]

Honestly he'd get the best bang for his buck spending that 2 billion on PR for being conscious of climate change. Its something that has to change in the culture. People get all critical with awareness campaigns, but changing people's opinion on a subject is often the best use of the money. .

There are still people who beleive that rape victims are to blame and there are people who believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. Changing culture is not that easy.

[Kujako]

And yet, the biggest threat facing climate change is meat and dairy consumption...not fucking CO2.

Not true, while methane is a worse greenhouse gas, there is far less of it.