Last Tuesday, as the strongest Atlantic storm in 90 years slammed the western coast of Jamaica with 185-mph winds, Bill Gates was downplaying climate change.
The billionaire does not appear to have publicly addressed the disaster in Jamaica, which extended throughout the Caribbean, with Melissa having killed dozens across Cuba, Haiti, the Bahamas, and the Dominican Republic. And his overall point, frankly, does not hold up to scrutiny.
Gates isn’t alone; climate change has slipped down the world’s priority list in the past few years—and it shows. Governments and corporations are shelving emissions goals, budgets are being redirected from climate initiatives to warfare, the media is pivoting away from climate journalism, and even activists are urging a softer, more “hopeful” tone. It all signals a vibe shift in how we talk about climate change, reframing it from the existential risk it actually poses to a less urgent, peripheral issue—even as the floodwaters reach our front doors.
What exactly is your point
That his carbon footprint being way higher than that of an average person is outweighed by the positive impact. If every billionaire spent a majority of their wealth on charity we would live in a completely different world.
We would also live in a different world if we taxed them, or stopped believing in fake borders and just started helping people regardless of which side of an invisible line two people fucked on. There’s lots of low carbon high value things that could be done, none of which involves one billionaire having life or death decision making power from his private jet.
While all of that is true, I dont understand how it contradicts my statement that a person spending billions on helping people has higher impact than another person that doesnt.