Finished: August 23, 2024
Why I read this
So often we are subjected these days to the doom and gloom of the upcoming climate catastrophe of global warming. I’m not sure how it is in other fields, but in my field of energy infrastructure it is something we see all the time. Whether it is trying to reduce the carbon emissions of our material sourcing, or to implement low carbon construction processes, or a review of our upcoming project pipeline (which is largely increased by the energy transition objectives. Net Zero by 2050 means A LOT of substations, transmission lines, and distribution lines), we are exposed day after day to the need to push for a shift to zero carbon driven by a fear of what will happen should we fail. This gives us the Why to fight climate change (because if we don’t at worst we die, at best it is disastrously expensive), and the What (get to net zero carbon emissions), but time and time again we are missing the How. It was the two magic words of “How To” on the cover of this book that really got me interested in reading it. I’m sold on the idea of climate change, but I believe that far too many people working in environmental fields lack the ability to translate that discussion into concretely How.
What I learned
Although maintaining a resolute optimism, Gates covers quite a lot of ground in this 230 page book. He succinctly explains why the climate crisis matters, what systems are the main causes, and what groups need to play together to both mitigate the inevitable consequences of climate change that are coming and to prevent even worse scenarios by achieving net zero carbon emissions as soon as possible. Paired with How the World Really Works by Vaclav Smil (which Gates references frequently), I feel I’ve got a pretty good understanding on the overall problems and challenges we are facing with climate change. Gates even equipped me further with his 5 questions to ask during any discussion on climate change. These include :
- How much of the 52 billion tons are we talking about?
- What’s your plan for cement? (or other massively used materials that have no market equivalent, and their creation requires emissions of Carbon Dioxide)
- How much power are we talking about?
- How much space do you need?
- How much is this going to cost?
Either this will make me seem (or feel) very smart in any conversation on the subject, or it will make me seem pretentious. No way to know until I try it! At a minimum hopefully it will steer conversations away from the minutia of whether we use plastic straws, or eat a burger a couple times a week to really discussing how we are going to make global change. As Gates says near the end of the book “We aren’t going to solve the climate crisis problem by telling people not to eat toast.” We aren’t going to do it either by guilting the well off of the world for heating their apartments a few degrees hotter in the winter, or asking them to eat less beef. It will require systematic changes to how our world operates, and any discussions on the subject should keep that in mind.
Furthermore, his approach was refreshing since it was simple enough for most anyone to understand. I particularly liked his breakdown of carbon emissions categories. For those who don’t know, one of the leading methods of determining the impact on the environment of certain products or organizations is to create a carbon dioxide equivalent for 3 “scopes”. Scope 1 emissions, or direct emissions, are easy, they are the emissions from burning fuel in devices you own directly such as gasoline in the car or gas in a furnace. Scope 2 emissions, “indirect emissions”, are already more complicated. Generally they cover the carbon emissions of the production of the energy (electricity) used by your company or in the creation of your products. So already to calculate scope 2 emissions companies are required to rely on upstream vendors of electricity for how they produce this electricity. Finally, you have the catch-all bucket of scope three emissions. Often considered something like 80-90% of all emissions, scope 3 covers all emissions that you or your company is indirectly responsible up and down stream. For example, if you take a computer that a company sells (as a final product, think Walmart or BestBuy) they are supposed to count all the emissions used to extract the raw materials to construct it, the emissions from the factory to put these raw materials together into the computer, the various shipments of materials (including all the scope three emissions of those packaging materials), and then the usage and eventual disposable of the computer on top of that. As you can see scope 3 is a mess to calculate, even environmental experts and institutions have a challenge making real methods for consistently calculating it. There are just too many variables.
Instead Gates suggests 5 more controllable categories of how to group emissions.
- How we Make Things
- How we Plug In
- How we Grow Things
- How we Get Around
- How we Keep Cool and Stay Warm
With this list it is much easier to keep track of the part of emissions you are responsible for. A car manufacturing plant is responsible for How we Make Things, but Individuals are responsible for How we Get Around, and often Governments are responsible for How we Plug In. It puts the responsibility of the right parts of the system on the right people. Instead of the sometimes unfair, and regularly inaccurate calculations of scope 3 emissions, where companies are perpetually pushed to change the processes of groups they have no control over. Everyone is accountable for their direct activities. It is also much easier to understand for someone who is not familiar with the subject. We immediately understand what someone means by “How we Make Things” whereas the idea of Scopes remains abstract.
In the end, it is just refreshing to see an optimistic book on climate change for once. Especially one that includes real methods to move towards the end goal. I think Gates has adopted the approach here of pushing hard for a nearly impossible objective, so that even if you fail you will have far exceeded the “reasonable” objectives you may have put in place at the start. Which is great for him to push for, but I did want to draw attention to one point Gates makes that I’m not sure he meant to make. He states at one point that “the world is governed not by abstract forces but by people who plot their own course.” Which is probably true, but by “people who plot their own course”, he is mostly referring to people with the power to do so. And when discussing power, it is important to remember who Gates is. Longtime richest man in the world, and founder of one of the most valuable companies in the world (valued now at over 3 trillion USD) he has a different position than most of the people reading his book. Take the fact that he regularly references his “friend” Warren Buffet, another of the worlds richest people. He even mentions in the first chapter of the book how he was able to put his mind to the task and have 26 venture capitalists funding green initiatives in a few weeks to months. For him, it is as easy as calling up old friends and asking them to put a few of their dollars towards an important cause. All of this to say that regardless of the morals of allowing anyone to become as rich as Gates, those who happen to be this rich have a responsibility proportionate to their wealth. For those of us with modest incomes and already full lives, we have a responsibility to the climate, but much less than those of us with much greater means. For a “normal” person, we should worry a bit less about our personal impacts (obviously we should still do our best to reduce where possible), and instead invest much more energy in supporting those who can make broader change. For example, supporting local politicians and initiatives that support research in green initiatives or investment in green R&D, can make significantly greater progress towards net zero than concentrating on reducing your personal footprint by a couple hundred pounds of CO2.
What I didn’t like
One area I think Gates could have elaborated on was more discussion on the physical limits of the task to be achieved. He talks so much about investment and research, but from my experience in the industry of energy infrastructure money is no longer the issue. After-all solar and offshore wind are beginning to have Levelized Costs of Energy (LCOE) that are competitive with gas and other fossil energies. Our real problem is a lack of people. Building things like substations or transmission lines is complicated and takes a lot of time. The same is true for windfarms, nuclear plants, factories, and many of the other physical products Gates suggests that we use. You can always invest more, but where do you find the thousands (if not millions) of trained professionals needed to design, construct, operate, and maintain these infrastructures?
Moreover, where do we get the physical resources to do everything? Why was there no discussion of mining lithium, aluminum, or copper? We need these resources to achieve the things that Gates suggests, and for some of them there may be real limits to the planet’s ability to provide these resources for our energy transition needs. There is not likely to be a revolution in technology where we can make transformers without copper, or transmit power without aluminum. At least a small added section on supply chain would have added credibility by showing a wholistic view of the problem and the solutions needed.
Questions I asked
Why aren’t more billionaires active in this field?
Why are we so bad at seeing the big pictures as humans?
Is an optimistic or pessimistic approach to climate change better? One appears to leave us with no hope, while the other puts us in a fairy-tale where everything will be solved by scientific advancement. Where can the right balance be struck?
My Favorite Quote
“I hope you’ll spend more time and energy supporting whatever you’re in favor of than opposing whatever you’re against.”
Bill Gates
Books I liked like this one
How the World Really Works : Vaclav Smil (for a wholistic vision of what the Energy Transition really means)
Nudge : Richard Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein (for how we can change the world around us, often with very little effort)
Book Reviews for Mom 