Bill Gates et. al. launch massive clean-energy fund to fight climate change

http://qz.com/859860/bill-gates-is-leading-a-new-1-billion-fund-focused-on-combatting-climate-change-through-innovation/?linkId=32225791

by jseliger • 10 years ago

305 139 10 years ago

qz.com

noobermin• 10 years ago

Just thinking out-loud and wanting opinions: contrast this with the public funding model, how sustainable or effective is this model of private funding of research?

caminante• 10 years ago

The article directly addresses your question:

  >One thesis driving the fund is that only governments have the resources 
  to invest in fundamental [clean energy] research, through government labs and 
  funding for university research, at a scale that is needed for breakthrough advances.
  Government funding in areas such as battery technology and materials used 
  for solar power, for example, has seeded the growth of those areas, with 
  their commercialization subsequently funded by private investors.

lambdasquirrel• 10 years ago

While we're at it,

which Gates and his fellow investors describe as a market failure that large-scale, long-term private investments can address.

cossatot• 10 years ago

They're not mutually exclusive. For example, I've done consulting work for a private geothermal energy LLC (AltaRock) that does a fair amount of R&D funded by the DOE (and maybe NSF?) and other public sources, though I believe that the company is also venture-backed.

A lot of the hard part of the development in geothermal is fighting with problems that aren't very solved scientifically, particularly understanding the dynamics of stress and temperature in the upper several km of the earth's crust near active volcanoes. I was working with AltaRock on these issues, which are chewy enough that NSF doesn't consider the baseline levels of knowledge good enough to fund research in, as NSF wants science to be at a point where some sort of obvious scientific outcome is highly probable before they will fund it.

I assume that this is pretty widespread in cutting-edge R&D: Those involved find themselves working at the ragged edge of the known universe, even if both academic scientists and the general public think of the topic as pretty mundane.

So I view a fund like this one as quite complimentary to public funding: At some level, venture-type funding that has a high risk tolerance can help get projects off the ground to the point where they can get funding from both more conservative government funds and more typical institutional investors.

(Full disclosure: I also own a private geoscience research company that solicits a lot of public funding as well as doing consulting and non-fundable research, but it's really just a shell for me to try to get paid to do cool science, rather than a nascent company focused on growth.)

JumpCrisscross• 10 years ago

Let's restrict ourselves to ultra-long term funding, i.e. that with 20+ years horizons.

In this view, there are more dollars in the public coffers. But they are more politically entangled. If your project is a political darling, e.g. a clean-energy company with a need for lots of factories in lots of districts and a cap table of retired Senators, this is close to frictionless capital.

If you live in reality, however, there are costs and political risk attached to this capital. The private pot is smaller, but faster-moving and less unpredictably politicized.

A balance between the two would be good, if only to encourage the public coffers to become more efficient.

UncleMeat• 10 years ago

NSF budget is almost 8b per year. This fund is 50m per year. Its simply not on the same scale. Science fails without government funding.

batbomb3• 10 years ago

Us at the DOE are freaking out about the questionnaire Trump sent out, hinting at 10% off-the-bat cuts (to all accounts other than 050, aka Defense), ARPA-E dissolution, political retribution to anyone related to climate science, Rick Perry rumors, etc... We've been running in continuing resolutions so long we've effectively been losing funding at the rate of 2%/year (to be fair, this isn't exclusive to us)

Even with all this money from billionaires, most climate research makes extremely heavy use of DOE facilities, namely light sources, and works best with the close development loop.

So far, these circumstances seem specific to the DOE, so that's at least a little bit comforting. NSF is somewhat insulated from the standpoint that NSF directors are appointed every 6 years and the current one will get through most of Trump's term. No clue about the NIH. NASA is similarly not in as dire of a situation from the looks of it.

mikeyouse4• 10 years ago

NSF is somewhat insulated from the standpoint that NSF directors are appointed every 6 years and the current one will get through most of Trump's term. No clue about the NIH. NASA is similarly not in as dire of a situation from the looks of it.

Potentially, but there has already been a lot of meddling with the budget that the NSF director gets to put to use. Basically every year congress tries to ensure that the NSF stops spending money on climate change and 'social sciences'. There has been broad pressure to cede to congress's demands that the stop funding anything that they disagree with as well as general budget cuts.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/battle-over-scien...

The NIH/CDC have been repeatedly denied funding for Zika and Ebola research.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-and-niaid-offici...

NASA will definitely have all of their climate research gutted, and given Trump's relationship with Lamar Smith and Jeff Sessions, I'd expect decent funding toward big projects that favor Alabama and Texas sites.

paulsutter2• 10 years ago

To be more persuasive, you might want to point out the big successes of the DoE.

The dramatic reduction in PV costs, for example, were caused by the volumes created mostly by European feed-in tariffs, plus the manufacturing determination in China.

Im sure DoE has some big wins, and people who hear about them are more likely to drive support.

lvs2• 10 years ago

A poor guy comes here to spill his guts about potentially losing his job and all the serious science that will be stalled, and you thought his desperation was for pointers on how to be more persuasive? Yeah, the HN advice culture has really jumped the shark with this one. This isn't a reality show.

concinds2• 10 years ago

The DOE's biggest duties are nuclear defense (2/3 of the budget), and science programs (1/4). Among other things, they're working to "find alternatives to rare earth elements which we now depend on China for" [0]; they also helped fund the Human Genome Project.

The DOE invented "solid state lighting, modern refrigerator compressors and water heaters".

The OP (submission) mentions cuts to ARPA-E, which he probably got from 2 of Trump's questionnaire, but cuts to ARPA-E are very unlikely to be significant, since they fund so many commercializable things, which Trump said he supports during the campaign trail. Here [1] is the Trump questionnaire so everyone can read it without speculating about it. Many of the questions are innocuous, the fuss is centered around question 13.

[0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2015/11/23/republican... [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/09/us/politics/do...

concinds2• 10 years ago

NSF is somewhat insulated from the standpoint that NSF directors are appointed every 6 years and the current one will get through most of Trump's term.

While I support science funding, this is a good time to remind people that politicized science is fat from exclusive to the right[0] (excellent article, don't just skim). A recent example is this paper [1]funded by a $400k NSF grant which tried to "analyze how power, domination, colonialism, and control—undergirded by and coincident with masculinist ideologies—have shaped glacier-related sciences and knowledges over time".

Also, for those reading about the "Trump questionnaire" who might not have heard it elsewhere, here is the NYT story about this[2], which much more comprehensive and slightly more balanced than the parent makes it out to be.

Among other things, it hints towards "significant shifts of the agency [DOE] towards nuclear power", and a "push to commercialize the research of the Energy Department's laboratories, long considered the crown jewels of federal science."

BTW, the downsizing of federal departments has been planned by Trump for a long time, and brought up by him during the campaign, when he said several months ago that he wants to reduce the federal workforce and institute "hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce the federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health)". This was in his "Contract With The America Voter", and is nothing to be surprised about.

[0] http://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html

[1] http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/07/this-university-of-oregon-...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/politics/climate-change...

dreamcompiler2• 10 years ago

Remember what DOE was like when we had a Nobel prize winner running it? He did a lot of good, but he still didn't change the culture much. I expect the same inertia will work in our favor with Trump. Passively resist as much as possible, and try to outlast the new idiots at the top.

vanderZwan• 10 years ago

Relevant "Yes Minister" quote:

[Hacker is about to ask for advice from his predecessor, a member of the Opposition party]
James Hacker: The Opposition aren't the opposition.
Annie Hacker: No of course not, silly of me. They're just called the opposition.
James Hacker: They're only the opposition in exile. The Civil Service is the opposition in residence.

Although in this case, you can replace "opposition" with "resistance".

clarkmoody• 10 years ago

Passively resist as much as possible, and try to outlast the new idiots at the top.

This is why the federal bureaucracies are essentially unconstitutional: people within the rule-making structure are unaccountable to voters, but their decisions have lasting influence on the economy and on people's lives. For instance, many federal agencies define new felony-level crimes (that wreck lives) without a new law being passed by the legislature.

Don't get me wrong, plenty of people within government have a good heart and genuine motives. Also don't think I'm supporting Trump here. Just take a step back and look at the sentiment of your comment holistically: you're hopeful that institutional inertia will allow you to continue toward your goals within government in spite of the people's choice of the "idiot at the top."

crb002• 10 years ago

DOE has been an epic failure in the past 30 years. Only a sliver of the budget going to solar cell and battery research. Not sure how much of that was because of congressional earmarks, but Tesla is putting them to shame.

LeifCarrotson2• 10 years ago

When one institution costs money to operate, and another makes money by operating, the latter will very quickly outstrip the former.

Granted, not all desired behaviors can be made more profitable than their alternatives. But this is an example of how to encourage this sort of technological progress. We can be promoting electric cars not just because they are green but because they are awesome, or a free-market economy not just because it is more fair but because it works better, or no-till farming not just because it is better for the environment but because it produces higher profits, or space exploration not just because it is educational but because there are huge opportunities.

When profitability is a part of the equation, most other motivators are weak in comparison.

paulsutter2• 10 years ago

The 20-year life of this fund is very significant.

Every VC fund I know of is a ten year fund, which means they expect to invest the full fund and collect their return within 10 years. Which in practice means they actually want to get an exit in 5-7 years, ruling out much energy technology investment.

A 20 year fund adds 10 years to their time horizon, which will put many more energy technology investments within their "strike zone"

The BEV fund, which has a 20-year duration, aims to invest in the commercialization of new technologies that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions

E_Dobroslav3• 10 years ago

These types of things have, historically, been terrible investments.

peller2• 10 years ago

Couldn't you have said the same thing about investing in internet businesses in 2002? And you'd have been correct - but oh so wrong.

E_Dobroslav3• 10 years ago

I'm suspicious of vague "feel good" investments. Investing in particular approaches or technologies that look profitable, yes, putting a billion dollars into a vague "feel good" pot isn't a recipe for success.

grzm5• 10 years ago

What examples are you thinking of?

E_Dobroslav3• 10 years ago

Greentech startups early this century. Basicly all of them failed.

mathattack2• 10 years ago

Very interesting. I always thought that climate change is a tough problem because it requires cooperation, but that some uber-billionaire might say, "I'll write the 100 billion dollar check to make this happen" (Assuming an expensive technical solution exists without a good short term P&L) It would be the ultimate legacy for them. "I was the one that saved the planet" I worried that it may be too big for one fortune. It looks like several may be required.

marclave• 10 years ago

Or you could be writing smaller checks trying to colonize Mars ;) Just teasing, cooperation would be necessary from humanity as a whole.

kitsuac6• 10 years ago

It would have some interesting implications, politically. The democratic sense of "The People" rejected the issue and failed to take care of it through democratic and mundane day-to-day decisions. But the uber-wealthy who are often considered absolute enemies of "The People" had to step up and save the entire planet.

mathattack2• 10 years ago

Is it possible that solving the great challenges of humanity today (global poverty, climate change, nuclear non-proliferation) stretch the ability of democracies to solve?

I'm an anti-elitist libertarian at heart, but the "let everyone do as they will" mindset may cause problems. (And I understand that elites get it wrong much of the time)

roflchoppa2• 10 years ago

i would not say that "the people" have rejected it, rather some of our representatives fail to come to terms with the science. Either by choice or by foolishness. But yes quite interesting that the uber-rich in this circumstance step up to the bat, perhaps they have vested interest, just as those who claim its a "hoax//inconclusive"

natmaster• 10 years ago

Dear God, you aren't suggesting that perhaps the government isn't the solution to everything and that in fact volunteerism could be viable?

didibus• 10 years ago

The problem is again the tendency to generalize. A small number of the "wealthy" stepping up to address climate change does not mean that the "wealthy" are stepping up. You made a similar mistake in generalizing the "people".

gns244• 10 years ago

If they slightly re-branded as a for-profit renewable energy fund would that go down better than apparent altruism? Tesla would be a good model.

anexprogrammer• 10 years ago

How could they do otherwise with the messages they are getting from extremely partisan media and representatives?

The people are compelled to recycle, change their lightbulbs and so on but their representatives OK a fracking scheme or gas plant that cancels out all savings. There's no insulation, combined heat and power or even removal of fossil subsidies or sense of urgency coming from the representatives.

The few "people" who are scientifically aware seem very keen to see this change, but unfortunately are still a minority.

sargun• 10 years ago

Maybe. There are two viable routes that I can imagine. The first, the article doesn't touch on too much -- environmental engineering.

There have been a handful of ideas to reduce or reverse the effects of global warming using engineered solutions. Examples include such ideas as taking Sulphur Dioxide and putting it into the upper atmosphere (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-p...). Another idea, that was invented by Bill Gates' friend Paul Allen, includes building ultra tall chimneys in order to vent opaque soot into the upper atmosphere.

The other side of this is that there is a belief we can come up with technologies that are significantly greener without a significant downside in price or performance.

ako2• 10 years ago

Combination of these two on a large scale might me interesting:

* creating energy from filtering co2 out of the air, http://www.sciencealert.com/a-canadian-start-up-is-removing-...

* turning salt water into fresh water, http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-are-turning-salt-wate...

A energy neutral way of irrigating desert (Sahara , large part of California), reducing sea levels, and reducing co2 levels in the air.

semi-extrinsic• 10 years ago

some uber-billionaire might say, "I'll write the 100 billion dollar check to make this happen" (Assuming an expensive technical solution exists without a good short term P&L)

Good but expensive technical solutions do exist, namely carbon capture and storage, together with more renewables, nuclear and fusion power, perhaps some hydrogen production etc. But the financial requirements are unfortunately more towards OPEX than CAPEX. This means even if some uber-billionaire pays for the CAPEX, us regular people will shoulder the largest cost.

A proper solution would be a functioning carbon tax that negates the currently externalised cost of emissions. But in simple terms that means "making everything more expensive", on the order of $0.5 more per gallon of gasoline overnight, large increases in taxes on new cars, everything made from plastic 50% more expensive, cement and steel prices increasing by at least 20% so new houses are 30-50% more expensive to build, etc. In short, political suicide for anyone who enacts it.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

TheSmiddy• 10 years ago

Solar, wind, hydro and grid scale battery storage are all heavily skewed towards CAPEX, not sure where you got the idea that climate change solutions have high OPEX.

A carbon tax doesnt make everything more expensive if you give the money straight back to the citizens which is what we did in Australia before it was overthrown by our current government. Everybody earning under $80k and using an average amount of energy was financially better off under the carbon tax.

agumonkey• 10 years ago

Maybe it costs +100Bn right now, but with a heavy push, costs will drop before he has to give it all.

skolos• 10 years ago

Makes total sense.

Just recently I had discussion with my wife about climate change, why billionaires won't just solve the problem and what we can do to help? What is the best nonprofit to donate?

The conclusion of our discussion was that the problem is much bigger than what billionaires can solve with direct money, governments could do something, but politics is in the way, so the only hope is that technology will help. Hence the best way is not to donate to nonprofits, but invest in tech companies that might help with climate change. And get rich while doing that.

Maarten882• 10 years ago

Politics can amplify or inhibit success in the market by setting policy, and I think it will be very hard to innovate around this problem.

I'd expect these investors to pick places to invest where government policies will not work against their objectives, which probably is China and EU, not US.

kumarski• 10 years ago

I've seen several opportunities/companies that could do the half a gigaton and meet the other criterion really fast, but raising money is a grind:

* Advanotech.com - makes fully functionalized silicon nanoparticles at a fraction of the current cost. This automatically gives a performance enhancement to batteries that hits double digit percentiles.

* http://www.powertechwater.com/ also does something pretty awesome by removing solids from brackish water.

I hope that whoever leads up this fund has deep chemistry competency to be able to fund things that will move the needle on gigatons of carbon emissions.

Bill Gates's statements on energy have been far more in line with the realities of minerals, carbon emissions, and lithospheric realities the statements of many other billionaires.

indexerror• 10 years ago

They have Mukesh Ambani on board. He has a special interest in not letting renewable resources flourish as he is the chairman of Reliance Petroleum. A little good PR doesn't hurt though, so why not.

querulous• 10 years ago

if you were a petroleum producer, wouldn't you want to get in on the ground floor of the thing that makes you obsolete?

nojvek• 10 years ago

If I were a petroleum producer, I want to get in the ground floor. If it does make me obsolete, I can adapt and become the big shark in the new ocean.

Did you know BP solar is one of the largest producers of solar?

brohee• 10 years ago

Most petroleum producers rebranded themselves as energy suppliers quite some time ago, hell, even Saudi Aramco is doing solar (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/saudis-s...).

It makes sense, age of sail ship owners weren't extinguished by the age of steam, they just went on to buy steamships...

mistermann5• 10 years ago

I think it makes complete sense to have someone from the oil industry to be involved here, they'll offer useful perspective. This isn't your typical international governmental smoke and mirrors show, this is extremely successful men setting out to solve one of the world's biggest problems using their own money.

mikeyouse4• 10 years ago

Mukesh / Reliance have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in algae-based biofuels and other clean-energy technologies in the past decade. I happened to work for one of said companies.. We had regular visits from some of Reliance's most senior engineers, two of whom were on our Board of Directors. For a "PR Move", they sure spent a shitload of time, money, and energy trying to make our technology work.

dexterdog4• 10 years ago

What % of the overall business is it? You'd be surprised how little a shitload of money can be for a rich company.

askvictor2• 10 years ago

I'm pretty sure he is well aware that oil is running out ( much faster than coal at least), and is planning for the long term.

fsargent2• 10 years ago

It's a pity that charity is the best way (currently) to find solutions to these issues. Market mechanisms could create an incentive if only we put an appropriate price on carbon. Then industries would be falling over themselves to develop clean energy.

vinay4274• 10 years ago

Putting a price on carbon isn't much of a market mechanism. I'm not saying I'm opposed to the idea but it seems like you're putting lipstick on what many see as a pig.

ako2• 10 years ago

Why not? Ensuring that the true cost of a product is factored in its price will make people reconsider their purchasing options, and it may potentially show that alternatives are competitively priced.

witty_username4• 10 years ago

A carbon tax is a market mechanism. People (the market) will decide what is the correct amount of emissions.

taivare• 10 years ago

They offer now knowing they won't get government cooperation at least in the U.S. had Hillary won they would have been looking to the tax payer. I am all for them doing this the timing seems suspicious.

vinay4274• 10 years ago

You say this as if their cause is disproportionately in their interests and not in the public interest. Taxpayers should be looking to themselves if they believe in the cause.

emcq• 10 years ago

Did you read the article? They've been working towards this for a while, and likely would have started regardless:

"Gates had last year announced his intention to personally invest an additional $1 billion in clean energy technology. He was also among the 28 wealthy individuals and families signed on to the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, a group broadly committed to investing in this area. The new fund, which includes many of them, is a next, concrete step toward actually deploying their capital."

mikeyouse4• 10 years ago

To further your point, here's a WSJ article from Nov of 2015 where he discussed setting up this exact project:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bill-gates-launches-energy-innov...

jv22222• 10 years ago

I was just having a conversation with my wife yesterday. I was positing that global warming could probably be fixed by technology if Gates, Zuckerberg and others clubbed together and made it happen.

It's so strange to see that exact news on the front page of HN the day after.

vinay4274• 10 years ago

The full list of partners can be found here: http://www.b-t.energy/coalition/who-we-are/

Most of these individuals have already been outspoken on environmental reform so it's welcome though not especially surprising to see them here.

AlexC04• 10 years ago

I wish they'd set up an ETF of some sort. I'd happily put in a share of my retirement savings in order to assist in that. I'm sure a sizeable portion of the coasts would too. Sure $1B from Gates will have an impact, but I could imagine a climate change fund growing pretty large.

deepGem• 10 years ago

I think it's a almost impossible to launch an ETF for this kind of effort. An ETF has to track publicly trackable entities such as commodities, currencies or public stocks. Even the Private Equity ETFs track publicly listed Private Equity companies, not their holdings. From what I understand this fund will primarily invest in very early stage private entities.

bobsgame4• 10 years ago

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

gns244• 10 years ago

And yet the Chinese are installing new wind capacity far faster than the US. How does that work?

grzm5• 10 years ago

Speculation: China's power needs are growing more rapidly, so there's more additional power coming online in China. While, in the US, power consumption growth is slower. A larger percentage of overall power sources need to be replaced, where there's less pressure to do so.

cyphar• 10 years ago

[It's a Donald Trump quote.]

briandear2• 10 years ago

They aren't doing that to stop 'climate change'; the are doing it to stop actual pollution -- as in particulate pollution that has made places like Beijing uninhabitable. The Chinese would gladly let the Earth get a half degree warmer because that would mean less need for coal for heating, thus reducing their particulate pollution even more. They aren't scared of the CO2 boogeyman, but of actual, cancer causing particulate pollution. They aren't in to the "global warming" thing because they aren't looking for a means to control the means of production or income distribution -- they already do. They have a desire for reducing pollution and achieving energy independence -- they don't buy into to the sky-is-falling hysteria promoted by Western anti-capitalists. Rather ironic one might think.

sctb• 10 years ago

Whether or not this comment was sarcastic, its net effect would clearly be pro-inflammatory, which is not great for HN. We're after civil and substantive discussion here.

bobsgame4• 10 years ago

Yeah, it was in poor taste and I apologize for saying it. I was in a goofy mood and knew it would get a reaction. (It is a Trump tweet from 2012)

I think Trump will be more reasonable about the issue during his campaign and he said it at a time when there was less data and less certainty, so it's also not fair to take it out of context.

syngrog66• 10 years ago

for those who don't know he's quoting Trump. the man who, if becomes President, will arguably have the single greatest impact, as an individual, on whether humanity does enough, fast enough, to forestall/minimize climate disaster.

in other words... outlook grim

bobsgame4• 10 years ago

It will be OK. I shouldn't have posted that. I think Trump will be more reasonable about it during his campaign and he said it at a time when there was less data and less certainty about the issue, so it's not fair to take it out of context.

gns244• 10 years ago

This very thorough analysis of the potential for wind energy in the US concludes that the great plains have massive potential for fantastically cheap wind power generation, with some sites having potential capacity factors well over 65%.

http://rameznaam.com/2015/08/30/how-steady-can-the-wind-blow...

The point at which energy storage becomes an issue is a long way off if you connect the country with HVDC lines. Building such lines would be a great achievement for this fund. However, I guess the political question will get hit at that point: will the government be as keen to let private investors build new power infrastructure as it is for them to build new oil pipelines?

samfisher83• 10 years ago

New head of the EPA doesn't believe in climate change. Maybe gates can convince him that climate change is real? A billion dollars or even 10 isn't going to be able to change much if the government doesn't get some what involved.

wallace_f4• 10 years ago

Just FYI, a carbon tax can combat climate change while raising revenue.

T-A3• 10 years ago

Thus making you dependent on said revenue, so you end up not wanting to get off carbon.

wallace_f4• 10 years ago

It's still brilliantly more efficient and elegant. Plenty of other goods and services are taxed that face this same problem.

Cap and Trade has provided subsidies and rewarded some of the biggest polluters.

There's a very strong, fair and efficient case to be made for it. It would do a lot to reduce GHG emissions and raise tax revenue in a more socially just way (better than taxing jobs).

Further reading: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19499/gores_...

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/a-rorschach-on-...

witty_username4• 10 years ago

No, there are different parties involved.

Government wants companies not to get off carbon for the $$$; but companies want to get off carbon (to some extent) as they would not have to pay carbon taxes.

It's just like any other tax. Companies are good at tax avoidance (note: this is legal unlike evasion).

downandout2• 10 years ago

It's nice to see a group of people with the resources to potentially make something happen take an approach to this issue that doesn't involve politics, fines, incessant regulations, or taxpayer money. This initial $1 billion will likely burn up fast, so I'd also like to see them open the fund up to everyone and see how many of the people that made climate change such an enormous political issue during the Presidential election actually put their money where their mouth is and try to get something done instead of just complaining. As an added bonus, if the fund eventually produces a clean energy company that can achieve price parity with conventional sources, they'll get an enormous return on their money.

subsection1h• 10 years ago

the people that made climate change such an enormous political issue during the Presidential election

Climate change was discussed during the presidential debates for precisely 82 seconds. If climate change can be considered an issue of this election, then the "people that made climate change such an enormous political issue" are the people who made the following ridiculous, attention-getting statements about climate change:

https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/54o7o1/donald_trum...

downandout2• 10 years ago

Trump's position on climate change was discussed at length in the liberal news media and was cited by liberals as a reason to vote for their candidate. It was also reported that in the wake of their loss, a Hillary Clinton campaign staffer yelled at his co-workers during a post-election meeting that he was going to "die of climate change" [1] because of Trump's election, and this sentiment seems to be a widely held belief among liberals. So yes, it was made into a major campaign issue by the media despite an apparent lack of discussion about it during the debates.

Anyway my point was that opening a fund like this up for public participation would give those that so loudly claim to care deeply about this issue an opprtunity to actually do something other than protest or complain online about it.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donna-brazile-democratic...

askvictor2• 10 years ago

What would happen if they started buying up coal to lock it away? My naive view is that it would form a sort of a carbon price.

mrfusion• 10 years ago

I hope they consider funding mits sparc/arc reactor.

DennisP2• 10 years ago

That really looks like the lowest-risk option for near-term practical fusion.

Tri Alpha has gotten over $500 million for a more-ambitious but riskier approach, so hopefully ARC has a shot at getting funded.

boona• 10 years ago

It's nice to see that private individuals are stepping in to make a difference. The Obama administration was terrible at picking winners to back; I think tech types will do a much better job, especially considering it's their money.

frik• 10 years ago

As long as Bill Gates understands atomic energy as "clean energy", and even wants to build small micro-size atomic reactors for home owners he should just retired, and does what he understands best - as this is clearly way over his head. They should start to use his properties as long term dump site for his micro-sized atomic reactors. Maybe he should visit the ground atomic disaster ground zero zones in Ukraine and Japan for a week.

TheMagician0• 10 years ago

Would BEV actually create an impact on this?: http://www.metaculus.com/questions/223/will-we-keep-the-glob...

Bill Gates et. al. launch massive clean-energy fund to fight climate change

Related Stories