Well written. Agreed with your points. However, cost is a sticky issue. In my perspective, the problem is sometimes we miss the point of the environment as an externality. So “true” cost is not apparent in the system and therefore bad choices made. To get us to better solutions and really get the case clear to Gates re NCS, we need strong policy to price nature and carbon into the system. This may actually end up in “higher cost” but that price will better reflect costs to humanity (and help us use the market to find the most efficient solutions).
Bill Gates’s insights and grasp of complex systems (disease, poverty, education) is impressive. I haven’t read the book but I’d expect the same holistic clarity from him on the environment. You’ve pointed out a paradox and possible gap: massive innovation can also be applied to nature-based solutions. My guess is he’s persuadable. If presented with strong “ROI” on particular methods (e.g., Salk Institute’s Plants Harnessing Initiative, something similar for the oceans), his response would be interesting.
Here is how a cynic might read your thoughts here, Mark. Point one: You silly “enviros” just don’t understand the importance of things like economics (meaning money and efficiency, but also, sub rosa, business principles and even serious thought - leave that to the big boys). Point two: You silly technos just don’t understand the power of nature when managed by the smart environmental community gang. Do you really believe either of these points are so reductive or that Gates is addressing either of your points in such absolute terms? Good ideas and good conservation come from innovative thinking and action from across the spectrum of citizens concerned about climate or environment. No one holds a copyright to the best ideas and few fit comfortably in the community segments you suggest.
Interesting points on climate mitigation costs. The problem we have seen is a general one of globalisation whereby economically for example manufacturing chases the cheapest labour costs, so much offshoring occurs towards third world countries from developed countries who are most likely the biggest contributors of CO2. Bill Gates is a globalist and would naturally tend towards technological solutions where intellectual property can be commercialised and monetised and implemented above nature based solutions which could be adopted inclusively across all nations rich and poor and become scalable and tuned to suit the specific terrain and circumstances.
Being in harmony with nature is the gift we must embrace to go the opposite direction of globalisation and fully integrate with communities at a local level to make a difference that benefits all mankind not a few.
Well written. Agreed with your points. However, cost is a sticky issue. In my perspective, the problem is sometimes we miss the point of the environment as an externality. So “true” cost is not apparent in the system and therefore bad choices made. To get us to better solutions and really get the case clear to Gates re NCS, we need strong policy to price nature and carbon into the system. This may actually end up in “higher cost” but that price will better reflect costs to humanity (and help us use the market to find the most efficient solutions).
Bill Gates’s insights and grasp of complex systems (disease, poverty, education) is impressive. I haven’t read the book but I’d expect the same holistic clarity from him on the environment. You’ve pointed out a paradox and possible gap: massive innovation can also be applied to nature-based solutions. My guess is he’s persuadable. If presented with strong “ROI” on particular methods (e.g., Salk Institute’s Plants Harnessing Initiative, something similar for the oceans), his response would be interesting.
Here is how a cynic might read your thoughts here, Mark. Point one: You silly “enviros” just don’t understand the importance of things like economics (meaning money and efficiency, but also, sub rosa, business principles and even serious thought - leave that to the big boys). Point two: You silly technos just don’t understand the power of nature when managed by the smart environmental community gang. Do you really believe either of these points are so reductive or that Gates is addressing either of your points in such absolute terms? Good ideas and good conservation come from innovative thinking and action from across the spectrum of citizens concerned about climate or environment. No one holds a copyright to the best ideas and few fit comfortably in the community segments you suggest.
Interesting points on climate mitigation costs. The problem we have seen is a general one of globalisation whereby economically for example manufacturing chases the cheapest labour costs, so much offshoring occurs towards third world countries from developed countries who are most likely the biggest contributors of CO2. Bill Gates is a globalist and would naturally tend towards technological solutions where intellectual property can be commercialised and monetised and implemented above nature based solutions which could be adopted inclusively across all nations rich and poor and become scalable and tuned to suit the specific terrain and circumstances.
Being in harmony with nature is the gift we must embrace to go the opposite direction of globalisation and fully integrate with communities at a local level to make a difference that benefits all mankind not a few.