Is “net zero fever” breaking?

Having spent decades warning that global warming (later rebranded as “climate change”) was the greatest current threat to humanity, Bill Gates now has come out with an article calling for a shift in focus from curbing emissions to fighting poverty and preventing disease. In other words, he is now advocating for a shift from reducing carbon emissions to mitigating the effects of climate change. This is an amazing reversal, considering that he published a book in 2021, How To Avoid a Climate Disaster, in which he called for “net zero,” that is, a reduction of carbon emissions to zero as soon as possible. But now he says, in the words of a CNBC article summing up his article: “too many resources are focused on emissions and the environment, and that more money should go toward “improving lives” and curbing disease and poverty.”

As many cancelled scientists and policy analysts can attest, it was not so long ago that this sort of talk was enough to get you labelled a “climate denier.”

Gates’ article highlights three truths that have been true all along but all of which expose the relentless drive to net zero as a giant exercise in missing the point.

First, he says that “climate change is a serious problem, but it will not be the end of civilization.” Climate alarmism has evolved into a quasi-religion for a post-Christian society that lacks meaning. Prophets of doom from Al Gore to AOC help secular people find meaning in life by making sacrifices to save the planet. But these prophets of climate catastrophe harm society by making rational debate about trade-offs impossible and by stifling dissent with the fervor of Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor. Gates’ rejection of doomsday scenarios is a real “Nixon to China” moment that opens the door to rational debate about strategies, a debate he kickstarts in his memo.

Second, he says that “temperature is not the best way to measure our progress on climate.” Now that is really spouting heresy! But if global temperature isn’t the best way to measure progress, what is? Gates says that quality of life is the real measure and global temperature, as one isolated data point, does not tell us whether quality of life is rising or going down. He argues that climate strategies must prioritize human welfare, and he also says that while this may seem obvious, “sometimes human welfare takes a backseat to lowering emissions.” He gives the example of pressure on third world countries to ban synthetic fertilizers depressing farmers’ yields and causing food prices to skyrocket. Climate skeptics and conservative critics of net zero policies have been saying this sort of thing for years. But for Bill Gates to say it represents a real vibe shift.

Third, he says that “health and prosperity are the best defense against climate change.” Gates recognizes that economic growth results in increased prosperity for poor people, which in turns makes them better able to cope with all adversity including that caused by climate change such as natural disasters.

Near the end of the memo Gates admits the harsh but inescapable fact that money is finite and therefore we must make trade-offs on which good ideas to fund. Since we can’t do everything, what should be our priorities? He advocates measuring impact using data-based analysis of effectiveness in improving quality of life in order to determine priorities. The subtext is that driving carbon emissions to zero is too expensive for the good it purports to achieve and that a rational mixture of strategies focussed on clean energy innovation and mitigation is better. Gates is basically agreeing with Michael Shellenberger, who argued in his book, Apocalypse Never: Why Climate Alarmism Hurts Us All, that myopic climate policy hurts everybody.

Anyone who takes the time to look at the effects of high electricity prices on the manufacturing sector in my province of Ontario, for example, can see that the rush to government-subsidized renewables has pushed up electricity costs and driven jobs out of the province. The Fraser Institute points out that in the 1990s Ontario was marked by a low electricity costs but now has the highest costs in North America. The result was the loss of 75,000 manufacturing jobs between 2008 and 2015. According to Forbes, Germany is facing economic suicide as a result of “green” energy policies that drive up electricity cost and thereby contribute to de-industrialization. De-industrialization means fewer jobs, less government income, and reduced prosperity for all.

If we could cure the “net zero fever” we might stand a chance of regaining first our sanity and maybe even our economic prosperity as well.