If he were that evil the smart thing to do would be to do it in the third world.
He doesn’t make much off of third world countries and to a megalomaniac like Gates they would essentially be considered “excess population”.
Remember it didn’t bother Stalin or his predecessors to wipe out tens of millions of their own people so there would be more resources left for “Mother Russia”.
Well, just watch the third world deaths from starvation from the first world lockdowns, and from their being guinea pigs for warp-speed vaccine development.
There are a number of big organizations that do believe in “Overheating cult” and see that energy transition is going to happen, and in fact is happening, and these organizations are the major energy companies. These major organizations are looking at things such as CCS and blue / green hydrogen. These are fantastic initiatives and will make great use of the already installed base. In support of this major engineering houses are retooling to handle this new work. To give you and order of magnitude of the amount money to be made in just one of these areas is Offshore decommissioning that is currently IRO $315B. so as you can see from just one area there is good money to be made from energy transition
We are fine. No need to do anything. We’ve been hearing this gloom and doom from the left for decades now.
Prediction after prediction fail to be true.
Well, that’s not true. It’s easier to dismiss if you just characterize this as “left”, I suppose.
When when the permafrost melts, the methane and carbon within the ice and soil will be released.
The sky is not falling. Relax.
Doesn’t have to. The current extinction rate is far outside normal values and more reminiscent of coming extinction event. Fauna haven’t had time to acclimate (in a generational sense) to the changes in climate.
Regardless if you believe it to be man-made or not, it’s cause for concern, if not for you then the generations to be.
So, for those who believe Bill’s formula, and believe the so-called “science” that gives us eight more years to zero CO2 emissions, which factor is feasible to reduce to zero within eight years?
Population, services, carbon-based energy, or carbon extraction?
The most palatable of these for Bill and the richest 1% would seem to be to wipe out a few billion obsolete mouths. He is certainly in a convenient position to do so under the guise of medical crisis saviour.
The rich have no incentive to kill off people.
They are the rich, they have the most resources to deal with the effects of climate change.
The ocean rises, the rich have the money to move to the mountains.
The wheat belt moves north onto less fertile land, they can afford the rise in bread prices.
In the pandemic, the shut downs hurt the rich less than it hurt the poor.
The rich have no incentive to take extreme measures to combat global warming.
We are just fine.
p.s. What future generations? I thought you said we had 8 more years?
Not going to happen Paul. Food production hasn’t really been seriously affected.
Just to be clear, by hurt the poor more, you mean if the shutdowns cost a rich guy a million dollars but cost a poor guy ten thousand dollars, the poor guy was hurt more.
By hurt more, I mean the shut down took a larger portion of the poor person’s rent. Fewer rich folks are getting evicted this month than poor folks are.
(Rich folks are also more likely to have a job that can be done remotely. And a good internet connection and a good computer.)
Rich people can survive common disasters better than poor people. They have more resources.
I guess it depends on whether you ask an accountant or a social worker who was hurt more.
If you ask an accountant, they might tell you the shut down reduced a rich person’s bank balance by more dollars than a poor person. (That “more” might change if viewed as a percentage rather than a raw number.)
However, sleeping in your car vs. sleeping in a bed doesn’t make it to the balance sheet that accountants deal with.
Why are you pretending we didn’t have the massive increase in UE and the stimulus payments that prevented millions from ending up homeless?
With 75 percent of the people getting those payments ending up making more than if they were at work no less.
The unemployment boost ends soon, the jobs aren’t back and the $1200 covered rent for may. Most states eviction holds are lifted or lifting soon. We’re still at the beginning of the beginning of all this.
UE is falling, consumer spending is going up.
More and more states are in various stages of reopening. If Dem Governors and mayors want to make their cities and states suffer for partisan reasons that’s on them.
Are the rest of us supposed to subsidize the cities and states that want to keep their people in lock down after the extend UE benefits run out?
Hell no.
