When I first viewed Bill Gates’ presentation on the importance of Zero, I quickly tweeted and posted a link to the Gates’ 2010 TED conference video to share my dismay and so others could watch for themselves. As excited as I was by Gates’ endorsement of the importance of getting to zero emissions, I was discombobulated by his nuclear energy solution. I knew I’d need some time to sort out my thinking about the relative importance of Gates’ messages. Thinking time was necessary to decide if, from a change perspective, this was a step ahead or a step back.
Meanwhile over at the Worldchanging blog, Alex Steffen thinks faster and wrote an excellent, extensive summary of the speech and its importance. Bill Gates: the Most Important Climate Speech of the Year. “When We Talk Zero, We Sound Crazy. When Bill Gates Does It, Bankers Pick Up the Phone. On Friday, the world’s most successful businessperson and most powerful philanthropist did something outstandingly bold, that went almost unremarked: Bill Gates announced that his top priority is getting the world to zero climate emissions.” Steffen goes on to outline each of the key messages in the Gates speech succinctly, with one exception. He does not mention the nuclear solution.
The reason behind his omission may be explained by this statement: “But when Bill Gates talks zero, he sounds visionary. Gates, whatever else he did Friday, just made the most important idea on the planet mainstream credible. That’s a big, big deal.” Steffen seems to have made a calculated decision: “I will not sacrifice a huge ‘good’ in the name of perfect.”
It’s not as if there aren’t any critical statements about the Gates speech. Steffen acknowledges flaws. He simply chooses to highlight the flaws in Gates’ case that might keep us from moving ahead toward a zero emission future. “http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/010976.html.”
Several commentators took Steffen on for the omission of the strong nuclear element in Gates’ talk. “Not a single comment on his nuclear power ambitions? Kind of a big thing to leave out of a summary, don’t you think?” asked Tod Brilliat. It’s Steffen’s response that makes clear his choice: “I’ve talked quite a bit about how I don’t think nuclear power is a smart (or necessary) way to go, so obviously I differ with Gates on that. For that matter, I think CCS “clean coal” technologies are a crock, too. But I really don’t think that’s what’s important here. I think the goal of zero emissions is much, much more significant than choice of energy path (or even whether to emphasize clean energy generation or a more holistic approach). If we can agree on that goal as a society, all sorts of changes will tumble forward.”
Reluctantly, I must agree with Steffen. Nuclear energy is a distraction, a red herring in this context. The goal of zero emissions, and Bill Gates’ endorsement of that goal, is where our focus needs to be for meaningful change.
