I don't disagree with his new perspective. OTH, the cynical side of me thinks that the power requirements for AI/Microsoft may be playing into this new position.

> "All greenhouse gas emissions come from one of five sources" > (Graphic shows electricity generation 28%, transportation 16%, agriculture 19%, buildings 7%, manufacturing 30%)

There's another large source of human greenhouse gas emissions that will perhaps be the most difficult to do anything about and which as far as I know we don't have much in the way of hard numbers about, and that is emissions from military activity. Not just wars, but ordinary peace-time training, patrol operations, hauling stuff around, and so on.

getting the whole world to agree on climate accords didn't work. we blew past the 1 degree allowance we had budgeted for ourselves, so global action together is off the table. What will work, is extraordinary efforts by smaller groups. There's a lot of hard work by tiny groups and individuals to technologies that don't need the whole world to agree to collective action in order to save the planet. The obvious science fiction idea is to put sunglasses between the Earth and the sun, which is a ludicrous idea, because you'd need an insane amount of capability to lift things into space and place them far away from Earth. Once there, you'd just blackmail all the Earth's governments into paying you so the solar panels they rely on will work in order for your venture to be profitable.

The important thing to remember is that some of those bad parts where people will die from heat have nukes. Like Pakistan [0].

[1] https://www.arabnews.com/node/2352831/pakistan

Bill Gates gets attacked by both the right and the left. But the truth is that he has made huge progress for human welfare in working to eradicate serious diseases as well as by bringing practical solutions to climate issues.

I’m not sure this article is especially helpful. It’s addressed to the attendees of COP, but the attendees of COP already believe (almost unanimously) that adaptation has equal importance to mitigation. And it’s one of the only forums where poorer & disaffected nations are given a real opportunity.

I’m also not sure that anyone anywhere earnestly believes that climate change is an extinction level event that’ll render the entire planet unliveable. Certainly not the people at COP.

The piece seems unnecessarily broadly combative and contrarian.

> So I urge that community, at COP30 and beyond, to make a strategic pivot: prioritize the things that have the greatest impact on human welfare.

Like addressing the exponential growth of income inequality? Unsurprisingly not mentioned at all. Might mean that billionaires have to give up their carbon credit purchases and then how could they be dismissive about their own emissions?

Bill is one of the better ones with his personal capital allocation. He could've just tried to create the fastest sailboat racing team or something. But I find it extremely difficult to take the wealthy seriously when they speak about carbon emissions and climate change. It’s like hearing an arsonist lecture on fire safety.

> Thirty years ago, when I was running Microsoft, I wrote a long memo to employees about a major strategic pivot we had to make: embracing the internet in every product we made.

Is this the one that lead to the term "embrace, extend, extinguish"?

Curious to see who are the first who will boycott MS/Azure/etc because of this.

He is mentioning geologic hydrogen as a new energy source. Surely that is a fossil fuel?

There is really no source that indicates greenhouse gas emissions are in decline unless the writer means over a very short, even immaterial period of time. With that opening gambit being either disengenusous or dishonest, it's hard to credit any of the deductions that follow. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions