Consider the fact, that the publicly richest citizen on Earth, as well as one of the people behind one of the largest financial transaction sites, may have genuinely already concluded that, as the history of politics among other things have shown, that the Earth/humanity may simply be unsavable, for whatever reasons they find.
He has a lot of talent at his disposable, and presumably information to a decent bit of otherwise locked away studies/reports. Do I think he is correct? Perhaps not, but my nor your opinion really matters.
If he's made the decision shits truly FUBAR, ala Foundation, then leave him alone while he works on what he may genuinely believe to be a shot at surviving the FUBAR long-term.
He's in fact the most irresponsible human on Earth, perhaps in all of human history imo. At this pivotal moment, he is wasting tens of billions of dollars on a vanity acquisition because he is profoundly insecure, rather than taking that capital and using it to address some of the pressing threats life on Earth faces now.
If he really gave a shit about "expanding the light of consciousness into the cosmos", he'd be working on ensuring a viable biosphere locally before blowing billions on dopamine clickfarm. As it stands we don't seem likely to have time to establish self-sufficient off-world human presence before we render Earth unable of sustaining much in the way of life or advanced civilization, and as the (second) richest man on Earth, he is uniquely positioned to have a quantitative impact on that outcome. Everyday he wakes up and chooses not to, and people still think he's anything but a mercurial egomaniacal robber-baron, should be considered a coup for his PR staff.
I do not know the man well enough to pass any judgement on him. But, your statement [1] raised a question in my mind: On the wiki page, there is an outline of his plan to eliminate global warming through geoengineering. I assume this will cost a lot of money. What if he is trying to build up his wealth so that one day he can fund a massive geoengineering project to help the earth's climate? He has demonstrated the desire at least.
[1] " It's as if he's decided to just make the world a worse place because he can."
> Moving to Mars is a pipedream for 99.9999% of the population.
It’s actually a pipe dream for 100% of the population.
Slightly more seriously, I think he’s too pessimistic about the impact of renewable energy generation (contra his observations, Florida installed more solar capacity last year than any other state) and carbon sequestration. But I’m not highly confident in that assessment - maybe we are fucked. But I do think it’s more likely than not that human ingenuity and, believe it or not, capitalism (with a healthy dose of subsidies and industrial policy) will ultimately avert the truly dire scenarios.
But, beyond conspiracies, he has a simple point. If climate change is is going to be a civilization-ending force, why would someone who ought to be well-informed sink a large amount of wealth into an at-risk property?
I think that the very evidence of his investment is, in fact, a reason to trust him slightly MORE than a randomly-selected human.
Let's translate this into another domain: the very evidence of Wall Street's investment in mortgage securities is a reason to trust them more than a randomly-selected human. Does it still seem reasonable?
Even if people take action collectively, without any centralized incentive structure, green companies will profit.
Why? Because they're actually solving a problem, or because they're gaming the system? You admit carbon credits are being gamed. Al Gore is therefore one of the gamers. How is that supposed to increase my confidence in him?
I don't think he is and taking his book which advertises his investments as a base for argumentation is kinda...fishy.
I linked several studies which clearly demonstrated that investing money in nuclear energy is not only a bad idea financially, it also hurts the fight against global warming because you can spend every $ only once.
I'm sure he does believe in it - as I'm sure many who are "climate deniers" in positions of power do, but the profit motive to get others to not believe in it is simply too strong for a man of wretched morals.
I mean, one can make the rational (with a rather callous set of precepts) argument that if it happens after you're dead it doesn't matter - I had this argument made to me by a hedge fund owner/manager last year who I queried over his heavy investment in fossils - he is essentially looking to make a fortune and isn't concerned about the "far future".
Where things will get interesting is when these figures realise that it isn't far future, it's going to impact their quality of life - but by then it'll likely be too late.
If I was him I'd shut it down and use environmental retoric to justify it. "We should leave it in the ground, what about future generations?" sort of stuff. The mental gymnastics would be Olympic level.
yes but this is the guy who didn't think he needs to give up his private jet, so although I'm sure he's will intentioned I'll not accept his pronouncements about the environment at face value, I'll check elsewhere first.
Some ends justify some means. He lies to some investors. Not good. Because of the this the chance we get into serious trouble due to climate change is significantly reduced. We also gain the technology to go to Mars economically. So Yeah I would say this end justifies lying to some investors.
> Lest you dismiss me, I founded Carbon Engineering, one of the most visible companies developing technology to capture carbon... The company’s interests could be hurt if geoengineering were seen as an acceptable option...
> ... Cooling the planet to reduce human suffering in this century will require carbon removal or solar geoengineering or both...
It's good that he discloses this in the article, but I guess I'd prefer if he had no financial interest whatsoever. It complicates his position, which I happen to fully agree with. What he's really saying, the cynical media consumer who has metastasized in me says, is that you should continue investing in his industry, and also invest in a related industry that will raise the tide he's floating on.
At the end of the day it does not matter much whether he is right or wrong. Our elites have quite the Malthusian outlook and it informs a lot of the decisions we are seeing on a global scale. Why do you think is there such a big push for reducing energy production?
He has a lot of talent at his disposable, and presumably information to a decent bit of otherwise locked away studies/reports. Do I think he is correct? Perhaps not, but my nor your opinion really matters.
If he's made the decision shits truly FUBAR, ala Foundation, then leave him alone while he works on what he may genuinely believe to be a shot at surviving the FUBAR long-term.
reply