Will Bill Gates (with the Help of World Governments) Save the World with His Vision of Energy & Education Reform?
Gates’ conclusion on how to save the planet from The Atlantic:
In his offices overlooking Lake Washington, just east of Seattle, Bill Gates grabbed a legal pad recently and began covering it in his left-handed scrawl. He scribbled arrows by each margin of the pad, both pointing inward. The arrow near the left margin, he said, represented how governments worldwide could stimulate ingenuity to combat climate change by dramatically increasing spending on research and development. “The push is the R&D,” he said, before indicating the arrow on the right. “The pull is the carbon tax.” Between the arrows he sketched boxes to represent areas, such as deployment of new technology, where, he argued, private investors should foot the bill. He has pledged to commit $2 billion himself.
“Yes, the government will be somewhat inept,” he said brusquely, swatting aside one objection as a trivial statement of the obvious. “But the private sector is in general inept. How many companies do venture capitalists invest in that go poorly? By far most of them.”
Those who study energy patterns say we are in a gradual transition from oil and coal to natural gas, a fuel that emits far less carbon but still contributes to global warming. Gates thinks that we can’t accept this outcome, and that our best chance to vault over natural gas to a globally applicable, carbon-free source of energy is to drive innovation “at an unnaturally high pace.”
When I sat down to hear his case a few weeks ago, he didn’t evince much patience for the argument that American politicians couldn’t agree even on whether climate change is real, much less on how to combat it. “If you’re not bringing math skills to the problem,” he said with a sort of amused asperity, “then representative democracy is a problem.” What follows is a condensed transcript of his remarks, lightly edited for clarity.
What does Bill Gates understand about representative democracy? Gates is an oligarch in educational reform and *his* theories trumped state constitutions directing states (not NGOs and the Federal Government) to set their educational direction/delivery.
Those *math skills* Bill Gates speaks about in this interview are in serious doubt by many in the scientific community here and here and here. But if Bill Gates says it exists, then it must be true and world governments/NGO should agree to his agenda. His ‘math skills’ do not provide clear conclusions but they are the ones to be considered in energy reform. He implies opponents’ claims will be proven false based on assumptions (does it remind you of the process based mathematical problems aligned to Common Core?):
On the dangerous certainty of environmentalists:
The heating levels have not tracked the climate models exactly, and the skeptics have had a heyday with that. It’s all within the error-bar range. To me, it’s pretty clear that there’s nothing that relieves this as a big problem. But when people act like we have this great certainty, they somewhat undermine the credibility. There’s a lot of uncertainty in this, but on both the good and the bad side.
By overclaiming, or even trying to ascribe current things more to climate change than to other effects, environmentalists lend weight to the skeptics. Like, in the near term, the Pacific oscillation, this El Niño thing, has a much bigger impact on current weather than climate change has had so far. Now, climate change keeps climbing all the time—it just keeps summing, summing, summing, and adding up. So, as you get up to 2050, 2080, 2100, its effect overwhelms the Pacific oscillation.
The blueprint is the same in his education and energy take over: our best chance to vault over natural gas to a globally applicable, carbon-free source of energy is to drive innovation “at an unnaturally high pace.” Just switch the sentence for education to read: our best chance to vault over failing education to a globally applicable, open source of education is to drive innovation “at an unnaturally high pace.”
That unnaturally high pace results in an unnaturally high price and loss of representative democracy. In educational reform, research the number of bond issues school boards are wanting to pass due to the increased cost of assessments, newly hired data privacy attorneys, mandated technology, and the increased cost to the state for consortia membership and new assessments. The innovation drive that was never voted on by legislatures and/or voters is bankrupting state coffers and school districts thanks to the support of oligarchs such as Gates, NGOs and enabled by the Federal Government via the State Stabilization Fund and threat of severing Federal money if states did not agree to the USDOEd mandates.
Those who praise the Common Core can now praise Gates’ energy plan for the world as he uses the same blueprint to save the world in the same way he is saving education. He believes that public/private partnership is the best avenue which can save education (and make a tidy profit for private sector), and that billionaires need governments (with his plan) to solve climate change that may or may not exist. The billionaires are not interested in *disruptive reform* in energy policies at this time and he wants to see how the government can push private businesses into alternative energy:
If you think divestment alone is a solution, I worry you’re taking whatever desire people have to solve this problem and kind of using up their idealism and energy on something that won’t emit less carbon—because only a few people in society are the owners of the equity of coal or oil companies. As long as there’s no carbon tax and that stuff is legal, everybody should be able to drive around. So I’ve been saying, “Hey, come on—broaden your message to be pro–R&D.” And even the same people who are divesting those stocks of energy companies, ideally some of that money would come into this pool that is funding these high-risk innovations. And so that’s a message that I’ve started to get out. I don’t know if that will be successful.
It will be successful when the EPA requires (aka known as ideally some of that money would come into this pool) energy companies must fund high-risk innovations to carry out his plans. Does this sound familiar to the educational reform structure and the USDOEd using CCSSI mandates states signed onto to receive waivers from the unrealistic goals of NCLB? CCSS proponents insist the CCSSI agreement was *voluntary* by the states but states knew the threat existed of Federal coffers drying up if they didn’t. That’s the definition of the ideal ‘partnership’ of the oligarchs and the Federal agencies. Carrots and sticks. Is that Bill Gates’ definition of representative democracy? He makes the plan, Federal agencies make the rules based on the plan, but the legislatures and taxpayers who then pay for his reforms don’t have a say if/how they are enacted.
The government is the one setting up the regulatory framework, not the free market. This is something Ayn Rand complained about in Atlas Shrugged. Remember, John Galt developed an alternative energy engine, but decided not to market it because of the power of the unions and collectivist thought. So if the government didn’t get so involved in what businesses were doing, it’s completely possible the market would actually demand alternative fuels. If it doesn’t demand it, then it’s up to the seller to convince the buyer why his or her product is better than what they currently have. Then word of mouth starts spreading and the cash could start pouring in. It doesn’t mean it’s going to happen because the market is pretty much always in flux, but Gates obviously believes energy comes in waves. He’s just buying into the entire global warming hysteria. His solution to all this is more government spending because obviously the government can fix everything..