Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Businesses United States

Fossil Fuel Divestment Has 'Zero' Climate Impact, Says Bill Gates (ft.com) 131

dryriver shares a report from The Financial Times: Climate activists are wasting their time lobbying investors to ditch fossil fuel stocks, according to Bill Gates, the billionaire Microsoft co-founder who is one of the world's most prominent philanthropists. Those who want to change the world would do better to put their money and energy behind the disruptive technologies that slow carbon emissions and help people adapt to a warming world, Mr Gates told the Financial Times. "Divestment, to date, probably has reduced about zero tons of emissions. It's not like you've capital-starved [the] people making steel and gasoline," he said. "I don't know the mechanism of action where divestment [keeps] emissions [from] going up every year. I'm just too damn numeric."

Mr Gates questioned the divestment movement's "theory of change," arguing that investors who want to use their money to promote progress will have better results by funding innovative businesses such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, two alternative protein companies he has backed. "When I'm taking billions of dollars and creating breakthrough energy ventures and funding only companies who, if they're successful, reduce greenhouse gases by 0.5 percent, then I actually do see a cause and effect type thing," he said.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fossil Fuel Divestment Has 'Zero' Climate Impact, Says Bill Gates

Comments Filter:
  • Yes, Nuclear (Score:3, Interesting)

    by weilawei ( 897823 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @08:35PM (#59206396)

    And not more PBWRs. Can we stop building those and finish out the commercialization of MSRs?

    • Re:Yes, Nuclear (Score:5, Informative)

      by blindseer ( 891256 ) <blindseerNO@SPAMearthlink.net> on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @11:50PM (#59206834)

      And not more PBWRs. Can we stop building those and finish out the commercialization of MSRs?

      There's plenty of good reasons to keep building 3rd generation nuclear power plants. They are safe and a known quantity. I expect that we will be building them for another 20 years. 4th generation nuclear power, such as MSRs, is not a known quantity. We know a lot of the theory but there are some practical details to work out yet. This will take quite some time testing prototypes to work out. For example, to know how the materials these things will handle radiation for 20 years will take 20 years. Sometimes there are no shortcuts.

      I've been following the news on what's happening in the nuclear power industry for many years now and I believe that things will be moving very quickly soon. This means many new 3rd generation plants appearing and some results from 4th generation prototype testing getting published.

      One thing that has been promised from MSRs is the ability to use "spent" fuel from old light water reactors as fuel. There are people building prototypes to test this process now. It's going to take some time to see how well these prototypes work. If they did their simulations well then the testing will show promise and we can see early production models coming online soon. If the prototypes show they missed some important details then it will take longer as they need to figure out what went wrong.

      We are likely 10 to 15 years from commercial MSRs right now, at least. Maybe we get lucky and it takes only 5 years. Whichever the case we'll need more light water reactors until we got everything worked out on MSRs.

      • Re:Yes, Nuclear (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Wednesday September 18, 2019 @12:18AM (#59206886)

        Its time to end the restrictions (in the US at least, not sure about other countries) on spent fuel reprocessing and breeder reactors and build a bunch of them to use up all the fuel sitting around from the old PWRs and BWRs that would otherwise take centuries before it stops being dangerous. And the output from breeder reactors is dangerous for a lot less time than the stuff being reprocessed and used in them so you dont need to find somewhere to bury it for thousands of years.

        • "Its time to end the restrictions (in the US at least, not sure about other countries) on spent fuel reprocessing and breeder reactors and build a bunch of them"

          It has nothing to do with restrictions. It has 100% to do with the cost.

          In the early 1970s when breeders were still a thing, we were building dozens of reactors a year. Everyone was predicting 1000 to 2000 reactors by the 2000s. Those were fed lightly enriched fuel, of which we could neither find enough to feed 1000 reactors, nor process it quickly

    • My understanding is that Mr. Gates is invested in TerraPower, a MSR company.
    • Yeah, let's bet everything on the thing that we don't even know for sure if it would work.
  • by atomicalgebra ( 4566883 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @09:24PM (#59206482)
    Gates is correct. Divestment is a feel-good bullshit action. We need to actively pursue new nuclear energy if we want to mitigate climate change. Nuclear also reduces air pollution and poverty.
    • This is +5 misleading. There's no mention of nuclear in this article. After Chernobyl and Fukushima only zealots still advocate nuclear as an option.

      • Actually new nuclear has lots of supporters Moltex Energy raises USD7.5 million through crowdfunding [world-nuclear-news.org]

        All of the world's top climate scientists, NASA, MIT, the IEA, the IPCC, and a super majority of scientists all say we need new nuclear energy to mitigate climate change. It is the height of arrogance to assume you know more about climate change than the actual NASA scientists who proved it.

        Only fossil fuel industry pawns reject nuclear energy.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        How many people have died due to Chernobyl and Fukushima ? Lets be generous and say 10,000. More people die on the roads each year than deaths from nuclear accidents.

        These nuclear plants were old technology. Fukushima was a few months from being turned off due to being decommissioned.

        Technology moves forward over time. Please look at the big picture of nuclear energy instead of blinding deciding that nuclear is not an option.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          How many people have died due to Chernobyl and Fukushima ?

          65, more or less. That includes fetuses that spontaneously aborted, so there's a certain amount of guesswork (as to the cause of the spontaneous abort). As of the end of last year.

          Note that those are deaths due to radiation/radioactivity. That does not include firefighter deaths from, well, the fire. Which would push the death total up into the low hundreds.

          Lets be generous and say 10,000.

          Let's not be generous. But if we WERE being generous,

        • It's difficult to say. The impacts of these accidents are felt over decades and are measured in elevated incidence of thyroid and other types of cancer associated with exposure to radiation. Fukushima is STILL leaking radioactive material into the pacific. Expanding nuclear isn't an answer, it's simply not economic or safe.

    • It cures cancer too
    • Better be quiet, by saying things like that you will be labeled a nazi or anti-science.
      Saying that divesetment has no actual benefit is like mention that carbon offset are just modern indulgences.
    • It's useless because while YOU are divesting yourself of something you do not like, all you have done is created an environment where the investment in that thing is cheaper for someone else to take up. The available options are to a) invest and attempt to change the bad company from the top, which isn't actually that easy to do unless you can afford to be a majority shareholder or b) invest in other things that compete directly with the company you divested/chose not to invest in. I think that should be ob

      • I'm not sure why beloved Billy uses so many words to dance around it

        I assume it's to point out the silliness of the fossil fuel divestment movement. "Sell BP stock to save the Earth", is a real thing. It's a dumb thing, but it's a thing.

    • Gates is correct. Divestment is a feel-good bullshit action.

      Maybe I'm a moron and can't understand Gates but he seems to be saying "Don't divest, invest in promising technology."

      But if you aren't Bill Gates... precisely where am I supposed to get the money to invest in these promising technologies if I have no money because it's all tied up in Exxon?

      Money is zero sum. I can't invest in Nuclear Power projects if my money is in oil field surveying. So divestment has achieved 0 tons... but the money you take out and being invested elsewhere has.

      It shouldn't be called

  • Divesting is the opposite of what you should be doing.

    If these activists were smart, they would plead with the billionaires and mega investment companies to buy as much stock in bad companies they can so that they can vote to slow down production of fossil fuels.

  • The last link in this Slashdot comment (The link to Charlie Rose.) shows that Bill Gates still manages Microsoft: Articles that show Microsoft's VERY poor management. [slashdot.org]

    One example of Microsoft's poor management: Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made. [networkworld.com] "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC."
  • i've been pointing out for years that we need to stop trying to "convert" existing 2-4 tonne steel vehicles to electric and hybrid, and instead reduce their production and manufacturing costs (which equate with energy consumption) by using modern materials and modern designs.

    According to Kevin's research (Divergent 3D), EIGHTY PERCENT of the energy footprint of a 2-4 tonne steel vehicle is in its MANUFACTURING, not the actual road-driving. eighty percent! we *have* to get that down.

    Divergent 3D Microfacto

    • According to Kevin's research (Divergent 3D), EIGHTY PERCENT of the energy footprint of a 2-4 tonne steel vehicle is in its MANUFACTURING, not the actual road-driving. eighty percent! we *have* to get that down.

      So. you are saying that the federal "cash for clunkers" program was a total waste of money and resources? That the most environmentally friendly thing you can do is drive the car you have until the wheels fall off instead of buying a new electric car right now?

      I don't know how you are going to get the energy investment in building a car down. I mean other than reducing the amount of material to the point its a safety hazard. The process of refining ore into useful metals is pretty much set by physics and

    • "According to Kevin's research (Divergent 3D), EIGHTY PERCENT of the energy footprint of a 2-4 tonne steel vehicle is in its MANUFACTURING, not the actual road-driving. eighty percent! we *have* to get that down."

      According to reputable research, it's only about 25-33%.

      If you want to reduce it anyway, though, the most realistic solution is to use aluminum. That actually increases the energy consumption for the first vehicle produced, but you break even by the first time you recycle the body, because it costs

  • Gates & ALEC (Score:2, Informative)

    This is coming from, Bill Gates, a former member & donor to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), who've produced climate change denial PR & numerous bills designed to deregulate & increase subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.

    He's also lead the US dept. of Education away from evidence-informed policies by putting small amounts of his own money to push govt. to put billions into his own poorly-informed pet projects that, as was predicted by experts, had no effect (& in some case

    • Dear author, the word "philanthropist" doesn't mean what you think it does.

      I believe that a philanthropist gives money with the intention of helping others. Bill Gates meets that definition. Whether or not the outcome matches the intent is not part of the definition.

      I guess we are assuming he gave money intending to help. It's possible he gave his money knowing it would do more harm than good. That would be a "misanthropist", no?

      • I believe that a philanthropist gives money with the intention of helping others. Bill Gates meets that definition. Whether or not the outcome matches the intent is not part of the definition.

        I guess we are assuming he gave money intending to help. It's possible he gave his money knowing it would do more harm than good. That would be a "misanthropist", no?

        Gates has consistently bought medical patents and secrets. Most of his "philanthropy" can be explained by one of: a) things, such as giving free drugs, which stop countries such as India from needing to produce off-license copies which would reduce his profits b) things such as giving away free Windows licenses and being involved in education initiatives which support his main source of money, the illegal Windows monopoly c) blue sky research things such as nuclear reactors and actions against global warmi

    • by eepok ( 545733 )

      The Gates/ALEC tie (as you present it) doesn't seem all that tight especially since his foundation officially withdrew all support of ALEC in 2012. https://thinkprogress.org/bill... [thinkprogress.org]

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Can I be the first to say "Duh?". What's next, Bill Gates Announces Earth Round!

      Of course this divestment idea isn't going to change anything. Why would it? The far left thinks it can just use its shaming machine on everything. It doesn't work on the stock market. Climate change is quite real and we should do something about it, but if energy stocks became cheap, I'd buy it just like anyone else. You're not going to shame people out of making money, especially when they don't need to tell anyone what they actually invest in. You're also not going to shame people out of driving their cars, heating their homes, or air conditioning. You can take my air conditioner from my cold, dead hands!

      The great thing about divestment is it works even if you think like this. You will buy oil stocks. They will become worth less (since wind power is now becoming much cheaper than fossil fuel). You will want to sell your stocks, probably wanting to invest in other fossil fuel stocks because you believe in them. Because of the divestment movement, fewer people will be around wanting to buy them. You will have less money, and so your investment will be smaller and so the people who invested in the other f

  • Mr. Gates has an interesting comment on The Atlantic today, titled:
    "We Need a More Targeted Approach to Combatting Global Inequality"

    He talks about his use of data to get help to where it's needed:
    "Recently, though, we received a new trove of data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation that makes it impossible to see inequality in foreign countries as any less complex than inequality in the United States ..."

    I'm not sure if it's at the web site, I get the RSS feed: https://www.theatlantic.com/ [theatlantic.com]

  • by ragahast ( 879945 ) on Wednesday September 18, 2019 @12:22AM (#59206902)
    Bill's argument doesn't make sense. Any institution has finite investment resources. If they divest from industry A, they can apply those resources to industry B. The vast majority of proceeds from divestment are being immediately reinvested in something else. Unless you can print money to invest without selling first, by all means divest from fossil fuels - and reinvest in renewable energy, or whatever you think is best.
    • You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how stocks work. Except for the IPO, when you buy a stock, you are not giving money to the company whose stock you are buying. You are giving money to the person who used to own the stock. Who gave money to the person who owned the stock before them. Who gave money to the person who owned the stock before, etc. Only during the IPO* does the company receive the money when people purchase the stock. After the IPO, the stock has zero effect on the compan
      • > the stock has zero effect on the company's finances

        That's equally nieve as the post you're complaining about.

        Higher valuations *significantly* affect a company's ability to raise capital from banks, both in working accounts and bond issues. Holding that stock represents risk reduction for everyone involved.

    • by ET3D ( 1169851 )

      Divestment by itself doesn't result in reinvestment in anything worthwhile. You need to invest in helpful things in order for them to be helpful. That was Bill Gates' point.

  • Can he stop my Windows 10 PC waking from sleep in the middle of the night? Surely this isnâ(TM)t the most power conserving behaviour...
  • Bill has always been a fecking tool.
    Way more dollars than sense.

  • The environmental issues are just a symptom not the cause,t he cause is there are simply too many people in the world and the number continues to grow. While reducing fossil fuel usage and making energy savings with things like LED lighting are better than nothing, it is only slowing the inevitable. It is like bailing out the titanic with a spoon, the ship is sinking.

    The only way to solve the environmental problem and lots of other problems, is for countries to stop concerning themselves with economic grow

    • by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

      The environmental issues are just a symptom not the cause,t he cause is there are simply too many people in the world and the number continues to grow.

      #unpopular-opinion. It's hard to appeal to reason to people who don't take any responsibility for their carbon footprint, their reproductive activities and just in general feel it's the so-called "god given" right to do as they damn well please with no consideration for anyone else. That's the truth. You can mod people like us into oblivion but the truth is the truth. The root cause of the problem is: people. We need to be fixed.

  • They said the same thing about divestment from apartheid in South Africa.

    And they were right... until they were not.

    • by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

      They said the same thing about divestment from apartheid in South Africa.

      And they were right... until they were not.

      There have been just as many "Chicken Littles" that you could say precisely the same thing about. This is not helpful to the discussion. Facts and data and well thought out solutions backed by solid evidence are valuable though.

  • by Maury Markowitz ( 452832 ) on Wednesday September 18, 2019 @06:40AM (#59207694) Homepage

    > investors who want to use their money to promote progress will have better results by funding innovative businesses

    Yeah, and they get that money by divesting in their existing investments.

    • charitably, we could say he has so much money he doesn't realize that most investors need to take their money out of one thing to invest it in an alternative thing.
    • by G00F ( 241765 )

      Buying stock in $Company, is not giving money to $Company to spend.

      That money goes to who ever is selling their stock. 99.9% of the time besides IPO it's someone who bought the stock not the company directly.

      Investing in tech as Bill says, is giving the company money, either to start it or to further fund it. Or even buying part of it.

  • by Tom ( 822 ) on Wednesday September 18, 2019 @07:19AM (#59207834) Homepage Journal

    who is one of the world's most prominent philanthropists.

    He's also famous for having acquired his riches by unethical business practices setting the IT industry back at least a decade, and for having been repeatedly wrong with his predictions about the future.

    I'd rather listen to the Friday for Future movement, thank you.

    • by gatkinso ( 15975 )

      Oh please. As if OS/2 wasn't shite and peddled by a bunch of asshats who were just as greedy.

      • by Tom ( 822 )

        None of the OS/2 people had to re-write their own book to make it appear at least a bit less off the mark...

  • ...or there is a cheaper alternative.

    He is right.

  • This site is unusable with a giant banner ad taking up 1/2 the page.

    WTF, /.?

  • Look, there are six takeaways from this.

    1. Nuclear fission reactors will not be planned, permitted, and built from scratch in the next 8.5 years, which is when they would have to be complete. It's more like 20 years.

    2. Our global energy supply is rapidly shifting to renewables, because they are much much much cheaper. Cheaper than fossil fuels even. But fossil fuels have tax incentives, subsidies, exclusions, exceptions, and deductions and depreciation which kills the market signal that would replace them

  • "I'm just too damn numeric."

    Gates it too old skool. These days, particularly when it comes to climate change, you have to "think" with your feeling... the numbers will magically work themselves out!

  • When you have the billions Bill Gates has you can talk like he's talking and be completely out of touch with reality.

    Unlike Billy G, others have to move their money around to squeak out any gains. Therefore, divesting of fossil fuel investments means they have money free to move into non-fossil fuel investments like solar, wind, geothermal, etc.

    Believe it or not Bill, we don't all get to pick ANYTHING we want to invest in.

    LoB
  • As far as I understand it, divestment, if it does anything at all, may slightly and temporarily lower the price of the companies from which you are divesting, so you're providing a buying opportunity to the people who disagree with you.
    • As far as I understand it, divestment, if it does anything at all, may slightly and temporarily lower the price of the companies from which you are divesting, so you're providing a buying opportunity to the people who disagree with you.

      Pretty much sums it up.

  • Economically, I think the most obvious fact about Western divestment efforts is that it will reduce demand, and make supply cheaper for other countries who have no interest in divesting because they're building their own economies. The only way divestment works is with global coordination, which is easier said than done. Otherwise, you're just increasing incentive to take the shortcut and use fossil fuels by making it cheaper. We need to keep the price as high as possible.

    The only other way I see is to make

    • by Torodung ( 31985 )

      Or, we could try a dick move and start buying oil up as fast as possible and stick it in the National Oil Reserve with no intention of ever using it. I think that might start a war, though.

  • It makes sense to divest from fossil fuel stocks for two reasons:
    1) Discourages that industry from expanding
    2) If we're going to have any effective plan and hope of bending the curve on global warming, the consensus science tells us we have to be off half of our current fossil fuel consumption in about 10 years, and off all of it within 30 years.
    That plan, which has to and will happen, will strand most of the assets currently being invested in in the fossil fuel exploration and production industry.
  • Gates claims divestment has zero impact? Just how many millions/billions of Oil/Energy company stocks does he own that he doesn't want to see go down in value?

You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all alike.

Working...