Guy Moorhouse &
How to Avoid a Climate Disaster by Bill Gates

** spoiler alert ** First of all, Chapter 12 is literally the main point of the book. Lastly, the breakdown of the different possible solutions and the impact financially as well as economically was 🔥 It’s great to see Factfulness being quite by Bill Gates, it’s a book worth reading before this!

I liked it, learned some things about how our world is shaped, and got a good grasp on the current climate situation and future.

İklim krizi ile ilgili genel hatları görebilmek, sebep-sonuç ilişkisi kurabilmek, bazı öngörülerde bulunabilmek için okunabilecek çok yararlı bir kitap olduğunu düşünüyorum.

You have heard of climate change. You probably agree it is an important topic, something everybody should pay attention to. You probably do your part in reversing this at an individual level with better choices. You would probably also admit you're not an expert in this topic - and then this book is for you Bill Gates puts down his entire mental model ok how to think about this complex space. Great thinkers have an ability to simplify things, and that's precisely what Gates has accomplished in this book. The book avoids being preachy, does not pick winners but lays down facts in an easy to understand manner. I liked how it builds on individual concepts - 51b tons is probably drilled into my memory at this moment and why 0 is important. Highly recommended.

General advices what one should do and what actions you should take if you want call Earth your home. Cut down on your energy bills and maybe go vegan! The more people who make these changes, the more effective a movement it will become. Vote for the right people, cut down on your energy bills, change your shopping habits. Make a planetary change

3.7, rounded to 4. First of all, I feel a little bad for Bill Gates. Unlike other billionaires who seem intent on living on Mars, Bill is actually interested in fixing the only planet we have. So kudos to him; give him a break, haters. That said, I really, really wish Bill had written this book as a collaborative effort with people like Bill McKibben or Elizabeth Kolbert or Hope Jahren, if for no other reason than to improve it's style, but also to increase the number of ideas circulating in his orbit. And why doesn't he reference the fine work done by the Drawdown Project or by the many professors at Stanford and other universities working on possible solutions and quantifying the problem. Instead, he name checks a book written in 2010 by a British professor who died in 2016. It's not a horrible book, but there are more modern, and maybe, probably, better ideas out there in 2021. Also, I was a little stunned that he said he really didn't begin to believe global warming was a real thing until 2006. What? I realize he was a little busy in the '90's, but still. I learned about the theory of atmospheric warming due to CO2 in my undergraduate chemistry class, and I've been following the literature since then, and following it intently since about 1988 (Hansen, NASA, all that jazz really got cranked up in '88). And despite describing the dangers of sea level rise, he makes the rookie error of not noting that one of the greatest problems caused by CO2 in the oceans is acidification of seawater, which eventually could get bad enough to prevent corals building new coral, or sea creatures making shells or carapaces (think crabs, barnacles, clams, etc). And he seems to minimize or not really understand what a general ecological collapse brought on by global warming would mean for us humans. Okay, so what did I like, now that I'm done carping? I like that he simplified things down to the CO2 budget of Earth (his 51 billion tons per year number), and breaks it out into its constituent parts by segment: manufacturing things: think steel, concrete, plastic; producing electricity; agriculture; transportation; and heating / cooling. And then he talks about how to address each sector. He takes a logical engineer's approach to the issue, mostly* (*more on that later). He introduced me to an interesting concept while explaining energy production; the idea of density of power production. He points out that it takes a lot more space to produce energy from solar or wind than it does from a natural gas powered or nuclear powered electric plant. It's a good point, but he doesn't consider the counter argument, which is that all that space on the roofs of all those big box stores, or for that matter, residential rooftops, is not exactly in high demand for other uses. And he doesn't spend nearly enough time on jobs, which could be a huge win-win for green energy. Gates makes a good point about the need for steady energy production. Unless we are all going to have Tesla Walls to power our homes at night, and even bigger Tesla Walls for businesses and manufacturers, you have to have a way to supply electricity constantly. In the US, currently we do this mostly by burning fossil fuels (60%), with 20% from nuclear and 20% from renewables, including hydropower. So how to reduce the steady power from fossil fuels and replace it with non-CO2-producing sources? Gates throws out a lot of possibilities (modern, safer nuclear plants, geothermal, pumped hydro), but he doesn't take the extra step to do the math that says, "Okay, we can get to 60% of power production with renewables, add 10% for geothermal and pumped hydro, 10% from batteries, keep the 20% from nuclear, and Presto!, you're there!" That would have made me like the book a lot more. He simply presents a sort of laundry list, unlike the Drawdown Project that actually attempted to do the math in detail. I'm an engineer and a math minor, and the above noted lack of specificity by Gates was frustrating to me. This is an optimization problem, and you could, even using today's costs for solar, geothermal, wind, modern nuclear, etc, crank the numbers and come up with an answer including cost and relative % contribution from various sources. You could also get fancy, and project future costs for solar, etc, which are sure to go lower, and get a more refined answer, but Bill didn't do this. I don't get it; he has access to all the resources in the world given his status as 4th richest man around, and leading world philanthropist, and yet he didn't work the math, or hire someone to work the math to come up with a prescriptive solution that could serve as a straw man for policy makers. And there are plenty of people who would have jumped at the chance to do that arithmetic. Then he talks about "making things", mainly concrete, steel, and plastic, and I was surprised to learn how much CO2 this produces. He spends a lot of time on "green premiums", i.e., the cost to make carbon-neutral materials, which are interesting, because you learn how relatively cheap it is to do this with steel and plastic, less so with concrete. And much of the improvement in this area will stem from using carbon-neutral electricity, of course. He talks next about agriculture and the need to reduce red meat intake, which in turn reduces cattle populations, which in turn reduces methane production. And methane is 28 times more potent as a warming gas compared to CO2, so this is important, and not a joke, as DeSantis-types try to make it (because after all, those wacky libs are talking about cow farts! How nuts are they, etc.). He makes a strong case for reducing red meat intake, which would be good for us anyway, and cutting meat intake in half could reduce global greenhouse emissions by about 2.5%, maybe more. He also shows how fertilizer causes problems, but he does not highlight the amazing progress made, and jobs created by large organic farms like White Oak Pastures in Georgia. A huge amount of food could be produced organically which would both reduce emissions from fertilizers and create jobs. But this is not mentioned; instead we get a story about his dad reducing hamburger intake and a pitch for artificial meat, which are possibly not exactly industrial-scale solutions. He makes a pitch to stop deforestation and plant trees wherever possible, and I agree 100%. What needs more emphasis, in my opinion, is creating incentives for people to consume less, and to consume more wisely, because the traditional US consumption model for food cannot be sustained on a global level. Also, let's stop cutting the trees we have, especially in the Amazon and Congo. Then transportation is addressed, which turns out to be one of the easier areas to fix, though it depends on solving the energy production problem mentioned above. Fundamentally, all transportation except long-haul air transport and sea shipment needs to be electrified, and fossil fuel consumption for sea shipments can be greatly reduced. Lest we forget, 150 years ago all sea shipment was by sail, and there are pilot projects underway to supplement power with sail on cargo ships (not mentioned by this book, which instead discusses nuclear powered container ships....hmmm....what could go wrong, because, you know, big cargo ships never sink). Of course we need to convert to electric vehicles immediately, and that covers a huge chunk of what needs to be done. I wish he had talked about shifting more freight from trucks to trains, but I'm nit-picking. Heating and cooling is covered next - again, I wish Bill had done more research. He briefly mentions the refrigerants used in A/C units, but he seems to not realize what a big deal those are; those refrigerants are among the most potent greenhouse gases on the planet, and they urgently need to be replaced with less problematic materials. The Drawdown project points to this as possibly the worst threat in terms of increasing warming, because a) these gases are so powerful as greenhouse gases, and b) because use of A/C is accelerating exponentially worldwide. Bill does talk about the need for greater efficiency and increased insulation in buildings, which are a critical first step, and both are low-hanging fruit. Then adaptation. I wish he had spent more time on CO2 capture/sequestration technology, because we are going to need it badly (because we simply can't get all this done fast enough). And one of the controversial approaches he discusses is sun-dimming, through particulate injection into the stratosphere. Here's where a real writer like one of the three I mentioned at the outset might have helped him, because this subject needs to be handled delicately, mindfully, with consciousness of the risk involved. Gates makes the absolutely valid point that we better figure out how to do the sun-dimming dance without causing SnowPiercer results, and we better figure it out in less than ten years. We are a bit like the guy on the third floor of a burning building and the staircases are blocked. Is the better choice to jump, or is it better to wait for the fire department to put out the fire? It's a tough decision. ***Update as of June 2022: sucking CO2 out of the air and sequestering it underground is looking a bit more problematic these days, not because it's not possible, but because of the enormous cost of doing it. So instead, perhaps spend that money on a faster conversion to non-CO2 producing transportation, AC, etc. Finally Mr. Gates talks about government involvement in solutions, and frankly I got the impression he was trying to please everyone, and not anger Republicans in particular. He would do better to commit a big chunk of his fortune to defeating every Republican lawmaker who continues to scoff at climate change; McConnell, Inhofe, and Cruz would be good seats to target, for starters. Sorry, but it's too late in the day to play nice with idiots who are putting our grandchildren's futures at risk. So, to sum up, I'm glad Bill Gates wrote this book. If nothing else, it brings renewed attention to the subject. It is a readable, only occasionally boring, book; all in all, not bad. I do wish he had made bold, precisely calculated proposals to solve the issues ahead of us, and I wish he had avoided self-promotion entirely, because that's a bad look for billionaires. He makes an excellent point about investment to get to carbon neutral by 2050, i.e., 2050 is tomorrow in infrastructure terms. The big things we build today will still be in use in 2050, so we need to choose wisely now, not in ten years. In re-reading the chapters to do this review, my opinion of the book went up a bit. I do like the organization of the material, so I would recommend this book, but I would also recommend about five others to supplement it, and I'd like Bill to increase his reading on the subject as well. He is now a key player, and he needs to collaborate with the really smart people who are working extremely hard to avoid catastrophe. I hope he will devote his energy and fortune to that.

İklim krizi ile ilgili genel hatları görebilmek, sebep-sonuç ilişkisi kurabilmek, bazı öngörülerde bulunabilmek için okunabilecek çok yararlı bir kitap olduğunu düşünüyorum.

A big recommend from me. This should be adapted into countries' school curricula, as it is a clear and concise guide on "how to climate change". Bill Gates (and his advisors) did a great job at providing the reader with a good perspective on what actually constitutes global emissions. Three things that grabbed my attention: 1. presenting actual plans and schedule on how to implement solutions to tackle climate change. 2. word choices in the Polish language version - feminine verbs and inclusive language, accompanied by statistics on Poland to enrich US-focused book - a huge thumbs-up for the translator. 3. global perspective - poorer economies are not left behind here. Different climates and development needs are taken into account by the author. My highlight was in particular a following argument that Gates makes here - the actual reduction in CO2 emissions to 2030 is not a particularly important step - as building less emitting plants (e.g. LPG) now will not make them disappear until 2050 (when 0 net CO2 emissions are a must). Hence what is important on every step of the way is to constantly question, whether steps taken now will eventually bring us closer to the final goal (net 0 in 2050). No time was wasted reading, and I particularly admire how accessible read it was - I feel now encouraged to read more on the subject of energy and green transformation. Another conclusion - we live in challenging but also really groundbreaking times. Next 10 years will determine the rest of them.

ufuk açıcı bilgilerle dolu, harika bir kitaptı. çevre duyarlılığı konusundaki farkındalığımı yeni bir boyuta taşıdı, umarım pratikte de uygulayabilirim altını çizdiklerimi :) iklim sorunu konusunda yeni şeyler öğrenmek isterseniz, tereddütsüz tavsiye edebilirim.

Engaging read with lots of insights and data as to be expected from him. I finished it feeling more optimistic that we can tackle this climate problem.

I truly believe that our next frontiers for human innovation will be in climate and energy. This book is written in such a plain language. It shows Bill has really deep understanding of the topic Remember Bill called the pandemic years ago. This book will serve the same purpose

I mean, obviously he's rich, not an expert; but his opinion was formed from talking to experts, so it has some value. This read like a really long Ted talk, but I still found parts of it illuminating (except for the last two very US-centric, policy-centric chapters).

Really insightful look at the situation in the world regarding pollution that contributes to climate change. Proposes quite pragmatic and reasonable approaches for improvement. It’s easy to read and accessible.

So far one of the few texts on climate change that was able to put the issue in perspective and break it down into solvable bits, instead of making you anxious with the whole complexity and size of the thing we have on our hands. Mostly good for that reason, because otherwise I think it’s a little too optimistic on the “innovation will save us, keep living the way you live”. Basically, there is almost no criticism to the foundational system that got us where we are.

A great overview on the looming dangers of climate change, what technologies are be developed to reverse / mitigate it, and what we can do both as individuals and as a society to overcome this obstacle. A must read for those concerned about climate change.

A technophile takes a technical approach to a wicked problem… which is refreshingly practical. A lot of other folks’ criticism seems to be about Gates’ billionaire persona. That criticism is naïve about the challenge ahead and addressed several times by Gates throughout the book. He distills the situation into tangible goals and plans, mainly around getting to net zero by making ‘Green Premiums’ on zero carbon alternatives small enough to be competitive on price to their polluting equivalents. The most intangible parts are the not-yet-achieved innovations we need to make, say, zero-carbon cement a reality and with a low enough Green Premium for governments and industry to switch to. Yet all of these technological challenges are addressed, explained simply, and primed for action. For the haters: I hope you’ll spend more time and energy supporting whatever you’re in favor of than opposing what you’re against.

A technophile takes a technical approach to a wicked problem… which is refreshingly practical. A lot of other folks’ criticism seems to be about Gates’ billionaire persona. That criticism is naïve about the challenge ahead and addressed several times by Gates throughout the book. He distills the situation into tangible goals and plans, mainly around getting to net zero by making ‘Green Premiums’ on zero carbon alternatives small enough to be competitive on price to their polluting equivalents. The most intangible parts are the not-yet-achieved innovations we need to make, say, zero-carbon cement a reality and with a low enough Green Premium for governments and industry to switch to. Yet all of these technological challenges are addressed, explained simply, and primed for action. For the haters: > I hope you’ll spend more time and energy supporting whatever you’re in favor of than opposing what you’re against.

If you are in the sustainability bubble this book is only a reminder of everything we need to do. For some people it might be a good handbook getting some arguments in hand for a deeper discussion

Bill Gates wrote and published this book during the pandemic but it’s clearly a topic he has been studying for a while. He admits to nerding out on some of the details however the audiobook, voiced by Will Wheaton, is accessible and interesting. There is an accompanying PDF for the charts and graphs. Key takeaways: We can’t expect developing nations to halt their growth by requiring them to only use (currently expensive) green energy, so we really need to reduce/eliminate the “green tax” that makes renewables more costly. When coal was king, the US gov’t supported its adoption with investments and tax breaks galore: we need to roll those back and pump up green tech instead. Globally. We need to reduce the amount of carbon generated as a by-product of the production of concrete, steel, and some plastics. In an interesting sidebar, he suggests that plastic, because it doesn’t decompose, can be used to sequester carbon so that we could conceivably “bury” carbon in things we make from plastics. He also discusses the use of geological initiatives (remember the cloud-seeding controversy of years back?), nuclear, the need for clean hydrogen fuel, and more. Most important, he discusses why reducing global warming by 2030 and getting to net-zero emissions by 2050 cannot be achieved by the same (linear) actions, and that we must do things on parallel tracks now - even when they seem at odds - in order to achieve both objectives. (My library loan has ended so I cannot reference the specifics, just what I recall. This plus the section below make it worth a re-read for me.) What can individuals do? A lot. Some of course with more impact than others. Buy electric vehicles. Eat less meat and dairy products. Sign up with your utility company to pay a little extra (the green tax) by requesting to receive your energy from renewable sources (sends a signal to the market). Put pressure on local, state, and federal gov’t officials to invest in energy research and to fix their tax policies that favor non-renewable energy consumption. Put pressure on companies to convert to green energy and support those that are focused on sustainability and lowering their environmental impact. Run for office. Keep reading, writing, and talking about the climate crisis so others don’t think it’s someone else’s problem. It’s our problem. Now.

Must read book for anyone interested in green tech and climate change issues. It is written in plain language which can easily be understood by everyone. If you are questioning how the climate change can affect you, then this book has the answers.

I wish this book was required reading for every politician on Earth before they can vote on any climate or economy decision. Didn't read it? -> no vote. It does a good job of providing a comprehensive treatment of all the complex developments, and systems that are required to be in place for us to getting to zero carbon emissions. Bill does have a lot optimism for humanity in finding solutions, which I am not entirely sure I share. 5 stars for being a very good 360 treatment of the topic, although boring at times. Yet again what's a little boredom in comparison to how much preventing climate change is going to hurt? Or even worse not preventing it?

It was well written and I loved the last chapters on policy and concrete plans (some of the other chapters were quite boring). But, as many other reviewers have pointed out, this book really begs the question „Who is it for?“. Who will be reached by this and what good will it do? I think that question is left unanswered, although not for a lack of trying on the author's part. I just don’t see it having enough impact to matter, and that’s kind of what drives the whole book.

I really loved this book. I appreciate any attempt by anyone, rich or poor, to promote environmental sustainability these days. Promoting the idea and spreading the awareness is the first step of the journey. It is a long path and people need to be aware of the issue first. Influential personalities embracing climate crisis as a fact, is not a negative in any way. Those criticising the author and asking him to do all the work with his money - let’s just say he spends some fortune and gets the planet to zero carbon emissions, what then? If other people don’t realise the issue and start acting accordingly, things will go out of hands again. This reminds me of some quotes from Batman, it goes somewhat like this- ‘Batman could be anybody. That was the point.’ We need to be proactive about this, maybe not for us, but for our future generations. Look at your toddlers(imagine if you don’t have any, heh) and imagine how their lives would be when they grow up. Personally, I try to reduce my wastes(food, electricity, water, gadgets) as much as possible and communicate with my peers to promote the idea. I HOPE this book makes more people aware and government to take some actions regarding the issue.

I chose this book because of a fairly recent obsession/anxiety around the whole topic. It's an interesting and super nerdy book in terms of possible technical and legislative solutions to avoid a climate disaster. However, most of this (if you like me are neither the harborer of a PhD or public office) is pretty much useless in terms of feeling like you're doing something about it. But maybe that's just the truth and if one is looking for "self-help books" on this topic one should look under existentialism.