Bill Gates' Climate-Oriented Venture Fund Will Now Also Invest in Climate Adaptation (technologyreview.com) 40
Bill Gates's climate-oriented venture fund "is plowing more money into climate adaptation," reports MIT Technology Review:
To date, the fund has focused on "climate mitigation," which largely concentrates on driving down climate pollution. Climate adaptation refers to developing ways of bolstering protections against the dangers of climate change, rather than just preventing it.
The firm's new focus will include ways to help farmers and communities grapple with increasingly common or severe droughts [possibly through advanced desalination technology or systems that pull moisture out of the air], and helping crops remain productive as the world becomes hotter, wetter, or drier; potentially through indoor farming and genetic alteration. Strengthening the infrastructure of global ports, which face growing threats from sea-level rise and increasingly powerful storms, will also be investigated.
"Investment opportunities there could include dynamic mooring systems that automatically respond to storm surges, cranes that can operate safely in hotter and harsher conditions, and ships that are more rugged," said Eric Toone, technical lead for Breakthrough Energy Ventures' investment committee, in an interview with MIT Technology Review.
"Mitigation's just not going to get us there fast enough, and suffering is unacceptable...." Toone says. "So while our focus will continue to be on mitigation, we will expand our scope to include adaptation."
The firm's new focus will include ways to help farmers and communities grapple with increasingly common or severe droughts [possibly through advanced desalination technology or systems that pull moisture out of the air], and helping crops remain productive as the world becomes hotter, wetter, or drier; potentially through indoor farming and genetic alteration. Strengthening the infrastructure of global ports, which face growing threats from sea-level rise and increasingly powerful storms, will also be investigated.
"Investment opportunities there could include dynamic mooring systems that automatically respond to storm surges, cranes that can operate safely in hotter and harsher conditions, and ships that are more rugged," said Eric Toone, technical lead for Breakthrough Energy Ventures' investment committee, in an interview with MIT Technology Review.
"Mitigation's just not going to get us there fast enough, and suffering is unacceptable...." Toone says. "So while our focus will continue to be on mitigation, we will expand our scope to include adaptation."
Re: (Score:2)
Steve Jobs was a nasty bastard.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
he uses his money to do an incredible amount of good for the world..
Bill Gates record with charity and improvement is a bit mixed. With drugs he has been very much in the forefront of pushing patent protection even where that harms patients. When Microsoft, under Gates used to "donate" software they often got more back in taxes than the actual cost of their donation and then used it as a cheap form of marketing. Now he's very much pushing tech solutions which allow other people to ignore basics like wind.
Here's a reasonably thoughtful interview with him [fortune.com] (also available in v
Re: (Score:2)
even denigrating practical, available working solutions like a combination of wind, solar and good grid connections.
That's not practically available. It still needs gas as a backup. Batteries are becoming near-viable.
Re: (Score:1)
This might be necessary, but it is very sad. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At this time, it is pretty much the only thing left that can be done. What a complete and utter failure.
Re: This might be necessary, but it is very sad. (Score:2)
This is what should have been done from the beginning. Conservatives have this business strategy, where they wait for liberals to try risky new things, and when they succeed they move in and try to buy things out and take over. Preparing the whole society for an uninhabitable planet is in order, it involves all this tech, all this underground living, and it all has to be done sustainably. If liberals prepared to win and survive, conservatives would be trying to emulate all of it, to own the companies that m
Re: (Score:1)
He should tell tech companies (Score:3)
Re: He should tell tech companies (Score:2)
Can't be done. The tail is too long. Make old stuff supported forever and every company that lasts long enough will have its resources eventually consumed doing only that. Eventually, periodic dissolution and restarting of companies would become normal as they try to get away from that boat anchor.
Re: (Score:2)
Choo choo! All board SnowPiercer now! (Score:1)
As Bill's idea of climate adaption also includes all kinds of sinister plans to alter the atmosphere.
Would you wear a shoe on your head? (Score:2)
Of course you wouldn't wear a shoe on your head. A shoe doesn't belong on your head. A shoe belongs on your foot.
A hat belongs on your head. Bill Gates is a hat. You are a shoe.
Bill Gates belong on the head. You belong on the foot. Yes? So it is.
Quite necessary (Score:3)
Any plan that starts with "we'll force everyone to be perfect and give up stuff" is doomed to failure.
It will take technological measures to stop global warming, and cope with its effects. If they want to call it "climate mitigation" and "climate adaptation", fine.
That, at least, has a chance of working, while guys who build mansions while yelling at other people for wanting mere houses, does not.
Re: Quite necessary (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Going with the flow (Score:1, Insightful)
Nobody is able to question the narrative when there's so much money flowing into one side of the scientific debate. My company is getting on the EV charge point installation bandwagon despite it being a fraud, and I'm fine with that because it pays my salary. I cut and paste the environmental slogans into my proposal documents and I reuse paragraphs I find online from corporate responsibil
So they have given up? (Score:3)
Well, it looks like we are truly on the way to 3..4C this century. No amount of "adaption" will prevent a few billion deaths from that. There is just no way to do it. We may be able to preserve civilization if we really focus on that though, so I applaud the effort.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to see any way this wouldn't turn into countless "might makes right" scenarios, where rule of law collapses because food scarcity has become the #1 issue almost everywhere. We think we have supply chain problems and immigration worries now...
--
We will soon have the option to harvest our farts, so we ca
I'm glad. (Score:2)
I hope more people follow that trajectory. I think avoiding these self-defined thresholds is a fool's errand. I want know we have a plan b, even c,d, and e as well.
Don't tell me we must do X. I've been hearing that too long. Tell me that if we do Y, it'll help when the shit goes down. Because this is indeed going down.
hiffenated (Score:1)
Mitigation failed (Score:2)
Scientists and engineers need to be thinking about geoengineering strategies. We’re going to need them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You are vastly over-estimating how much the sea is projected to rise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are wrong. Even Miami is has plans to handle the sea rise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hehe, it's pretty clear you've overestimated the effects of the sea level rise. Adjust your expectations and move on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL if I could afford it I would. I appreciate your implication that I have a lot of money, thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists and engineers need to be thinking about geoengineering strategies. We’re going to need them.
Sorry, not doable. The human race cannot do things at this scale. We are going to see the full catastrophe, we can only try to make some fragment of civilization survive it.
Re: (Score:2)
Planet-scale action will be necessary. If not this century, then probably the next, and certainly by the one after.scientist and engineers need to be thinking about this stuff NOW, so when we put plans in place we can minimize the chance of things going all Snowpiercer.
Re: (Score:2)
You couldnt be more wrong. The whole global warming thing is happening BECAUSE we’ve done things at a planetary scale. Without even thinking about it.
Driven by greed and stupidity. Yes. That rather limits what can be done with it. It also took something like 2 centuries despite global enthusiastic participation. And it was not coordinated. Now is you think this can serve as precedent for a targeted, coordinated, global engineering venture that likely will make nobody filthy rich, then you are just utterly dumb.
Planet-scale action will be necessary. If not this century, then probably the next, and certainly by the one after.scientist and engineers need to be thinking about this stuff NOW, so when we put plans in place we can minimize the chance of things going all Snowpiercer.
Again, not doable. This is several orders of magnitude too large. The only reason some people are talking about this is propaganda that serves to
Re: (Score:2)
In our current state, yes, you're right, planet-scale engineering is off the table, because our species has a serious case of head-up-ass-itis. My hypothesis: a wide band of uninhabitable area around the equator of the planet is likely to focus people's minds ju
Re: (Score:2)
The really large catastrophe isn't quite inevitable yet. If I remember my reading correctly, we've locked in somewhere around 1.5-2.0 degrees of cooling. That'll be bad, but not civilization-ending. 4 degrees would drive us all towards the poles.
Well, maybe. We may have 2.5C locked in already and the way things are going we are not going to see decisive, concerted action anytime soon. So 4C or even 5C is a real possibility. That would be exceptionally bad. I do agree it is not inevitable, but if you factor in human nature and that many assholes are _still_ trying to get rich (or usually "richer") on climate-destructon, it does not look good.
In our current state, yes, you're right, planet-scale engineering is off the table, because our species has a serious case of head-up-ass-itis. My hypothesis: a wide band of uninhabitable area around the equator of the planet is likely to focus people's minds just a tad. A few hundred nuclear plants driving carbon capture isn't beyond our species capabilities. Run them for a century, and we can probably take as much carbon out of the atmosphere as we need. But we're not going to do it until ecological collapse hits us in the head with a brick.
Well, nuclear will not do it. Too many problems. Maybe fusion. Solar and wind are options as carbon capture d