Before a gathering of Techno-elites Bill Gates released mosquitoes into the audience as a way of forcing empathy for malaria vaccine research.  But at the same time, Bill Gates may be doing far more harm to the world than his foundation could possibly balance in good deeds.   To ignore global warming harms our future.

Last year the Gates Foundation said about Global Warming:  “The fact of the matter is we don’t think about it. We haven’t paid a lot of attention to environmental issue.”

It is clear that they have been thinking about it quite a bit and have crafted carefully calculated stances that work to delay climate action, work to influence public policy to allow massive carbon dioxide releases to continue. 

Global warming can no longer be ignored.  Any business related to generating CO2 is hastening our demise.  That means all carbon fuel companies - oil, coal, gas and related industries automotive - are active or passive enablers.

Climate change has potential effects on coastal malaria.  Firstly, more frequent cyclones and floods will increase vector density and the risk of malaria.  Past epidemics were often associated with above average rainfall.  Second, flooding of low-lying areas, due to raised sea levels will expand breeding areas.  Within the Asia-Pacific region, many such areas are malarious and refugees from them could provide a large reservoir of infection.  Emergency relocation of refugees, particularly if aircraft, trains and/or buses are used, will increase the possibility of introducing exotic vectors into malaria-free countries.  Parasites resistant to antimalarials will add to the difficulties of treatment.  More than direct land loss due to seas rising, indirect factors are generally listed as the main difficulties associated with the rise in sea level.  These include erosion patterns and damage to coastal infrastructure, salinization of wells, suboptimal functioning of the sewerage and drainage systems of coastal cities, with resulting health impacts, loss of littoral ecosystems and loss of biotic resources.
     http://www.who.int/malaria/docs/WHO-TRS-936s.pdf

---

See chart:   Climate change and vector-borne diseases. (2000). In UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library. Retrieved 22:57, July 17, 2009 from http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/climate-change-and-vector-borne-diseases.

---

About a year ago, the Gates foundation had a tiff with the World Health Organization.  The WHO has published many studies concluding that global warming will cause horrendous problems with world health - including a 322 page tome Climate change and human health - risks and responses.   But Gates ignores global warming as a cause of any health problems .  The public part of the tiff was over the malaria funding.  Gates is doing great research and may have a cure or fix for malaria… we will know soon. 

The Gates foundation really did not want to rely on data from the WHO saying that Anthropogenic Global Warming is serious, and we should do something about it.  So the Gates Foundation built their own instituion to do the research — the Seattle based,  Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IMHE)  whose sole purpose is to gather data about health problems in the world.  It does much the same thing as the WHO does, even has snagged some WHO executives.  They deliver tremendously useful data on the state of disease globally.  The only difference is they do no projections on future threats - no global warming issues.  They segregate data on disease, and health problems from global warming.  After all few deaths from global warming, rather it is famine, disease, thirst, or fire or any precisely definable cause.  The WHO has dozens and dozens of serious science peer reviewed reports and studies on the subject of human disease and global warming .  But the IHME has none.  But they are not in business for that purpose  And so the Gates Foundation has been using them as a data source and so can ignore global warming.

Well the Emperor has no clothes, and the Foundation has its head in the sand   Now can you guys wake up and look around?

Given all the information available, how can the Gates Foundation ask us to ignore global warming?

This year the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will be spending 7% of its multi-billion dollar endowment on hundreds of efforts to fund research, knocking out polio, malaria and other noble efforts. 

Very soon (and starting now), climate changes from global warming will be the top health danger, the greatest stressor to humans, the biggest killer of population and productivity.  Millions will be dying from starvation, thirst, flood, storms and fires.  With sea level rise, expect to see millions of climate refugees - and with refugees expect to see climate wars. 

Gwynne Dyer - Military analyst and producer of “Climate Wars”

… I did start to look into this idea that global warming could lead to wars. It turned into a year-long trek talking to scientists, soldiers and politicians in a dozen different countries. I have come back from that trip seriously worried, and there are four things I learned that I think you ought to know.

The first is that a lot of the scientists who study climate change are in a state of suppressed panic these days. Things seem to be moving much faster than their models predicted.

The second thing is that the military strategists are right. Global warming is going to cause wars, because some countries will suffer a lot more than others. That will make dealing with the global problem of climate change a lot harder.

The third is that we are probably not going to meet the deadlines. The world’s countries will probably not cut their greenhouse gas emissions enough, in time, to keep the warming from going past 2 degrees celsius. That is very serious.

And the fourth thing is that it may be possible to cheat on the deadlines. I think we will need a way to cheat, at least for a while, in order to avoid a global disaster
       http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/climate-wars/index.html

Bangladesh faces 5 feet of sea level rise by 2100.   “As many as 30 million people would become refugees in their own land, many of them subsistence farmers with nothing to subsist on any longer.”

James Lovelock, the originator of the notion of Gaia - predicts a global population decimation.   An earth population of nearly 9 billion humans, will soon be reduced to 1 billion.  And not many climate scientists can say that’s impossible.

United Nations studies, recent NOAA reports, Union of Concerned Scientists, NRDC, Pentagon studies, even the Bush administration reports serious danger ahead.  The Gates Foundation is located near the highly respected University of Washington Atmospherics department. Even your local journalist has a science overview They have no excuse for such paltry attention.

The most dangerous denial is that of the tipping point feedback events - such as methane releases - a greenhouse gas 25 times more active than carbon dioxide - that can accelerate warming beyond all anticipated levels. We are playing with fire.

The writer Bruce Sterling thinks this year 2009 - will be a Year of Panic.  He says:

The climate.  People still behave as if it’s okay.  Every scientist in the world who isn’t the late Michael Crichton knows that it’s not.  The climate is in terrible shape; something’s gone wrong with the sky.  The bone-chilling implications haven’t soaked into the populace, even though Al Gore put together a PowerPoint about it that won him a Nobel.  Al was soft-peddling the problem.

It’s become an item of fundamentalist faith to maintain that the climate crisis is a weird leftist hoax.  Yet, since the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike, an honest fear of the consequences will prove hard to repress.  Since the fear has been methodically obscured, its emergence from the mists of superstition will be all the more powerful.  Unlike mere shibboleths of finance, this is a situation that’s objectively terrifying and likely to remain so indefinitely.
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2009/01/2009willbeayearofpanic.php

It is an old American saying “When you are up to your ass in alligators, it is easy to forget that your original goal was to drain the swamp”   The Gates Foundation is heroically smiting the ferocious alligators of disease and low productivity.  Thanks for that.  Really.  But the swamp waters are rising.  The seas literally rising - and within the next few generations we can expect at least a few feet of sea level rise and as much as twenty feet within a century.  Children alive today will witness tremendous chaos.

In Part 2  Why is the Gates Foundation in denial?

The Gates Foundation must have very smart scientists, brilliant financial advisers (if there are any these days), sharp administrators and good-hearted visionaries.  They list some powerfully smart guiding principles  Including “We are in it for the long haul.”

But they are strangely silent on the one issue that trumps all biological threats - the one issue that will be responsible for decimating human population.  Failure to acknowledge, failure to act means they must be misinformed, or shortsighted, or misdirected.  They seem to be acting contrary to their stated goals, and the interests of everyone.

It can’t possibly be because they don’t know that These two things aren’t disconnected.   Global climate change directly affects human health outcomes whether through disease distribution or agricultural productivity and food security.  …the U.S. is a leader in countering infectious diseases and other public health concerns…. climate change and the spread of such diseases are connected.”

Could it be that the enthusiastic fight of infectious diseases is a way of tacitly supporting the industries that enhance global warming?   I want to believe there is no conscious decision.  But again this year Exxon had the greatest profit year ever  - $45 Billion.  Exxon and other carbon fuel companies make up over $1 billion in the foundation trust investments.
Why would the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation consciously decide to ignore global warming?   
The carbon fuel industry is quite serious about keeping carbon fuel sales moving - last year spending over $200 million on influencing public opinion on global warming.    Carbon industries such as oil companies, automobile, coal, all know that influence on the Gates Foundation is a necessary part of doing business.   A few years ago, the Gates Foundation Trust listed investments  (as of this writing the 2008 list is not released) -  they were heavily into ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies.  Over $1 billion invested must have generated much revenue but also generated millions of tons of CO2 yearly. 

ExxonMobil, as the prime source of financial support for global warming denier PR campaigns, is now facing a suit for their part in causing global warming in Kivalina v Exxon.   Now this case is still in the courts, and it is only $400 million - not much for Exxon, but I would think the Gates Foundation would want to divest from such a company.  CO2 emissions cause greater and greater global warming.  As one scientist said about further carbon dioxide emissions, “this is just piling on, this is just running up the score”

Or do they want to avoid the subject of global warming because it is a business negative, or economically depressive stance for such a business related foundation?

Develop strategy … The foundation will be a adjusting the strategy as it sees fit; by CEO decision then input from Bill and Melinda.  The key danger is the full support of  BAU  “Business As Usual”   Because one goal of the Gates Foundation is to enhance productivity - which could mean business-as-usual. 
Does the Foundation see anthropogenic global warming as essentially constrictive to business and hence bad for underlying funding sources?

The elephant in the room is not static. Climate continues to destabilize and grow warmer, change is happening faster than scientists had expected. So it must be increasingly difficult for the Gates Foundation to keep ignoring global warming.   Dr James Hansen says that we have horrible realities to face , sooner rather than later, and humans now should act to mitigate the damage.  No matter what we do, there will be increased warming for the next 40 years.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/responsible-investment-gb61982.html

At present, the Gates Foundation invests solely around trying to maximize returns, arguing that the more it makes, the more worthy projects it can fund.  That means it has steered its dollars toward a number of companies that contradict the best of its values. Exxon/Mobil, for instance, has been the prime funder of think tanks and individuals denying global warming.  The Foundation invested in mortgage companies, like Ameriquest, that have been accused in lawsuits or by government officials of making it easier for thousands of people to lose their homes, even as it also supported nonprofits that helped victims of predatory lending. It put money into Tenet Healthcare, which has paid over $1.5 billion in settlements for fraud, kickbacks, and patient-care lapses.  The only category of corporations the Foundation excluded was tobacco companies, and Gates Foundation CEO Patty Stonesifer defended their approach by saying it would be naïve to suggest that an individual stockholder can stop the human suffering blamed on the practices of companies in which it invests. “Changes in our investment practices would have little or no impact on these issues.”   Paul Loeb  http://www.paulloeb.org/articles/GatesFoundation.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story

Last year… “a Times investigation has found, the foundation reaps vast financial gains every year from investments that contravene its good works.”…   Like most philanthropies, the Gates Foundation gives away at least 5% of its worth every year, to avoid paying most taxes.  In 2005, it granted nearly $1.4 billion.  It awards grants mainly in support of global health initiatives, for efforts to improve public education in the United States, and for social welfare programs in the Pacific Northwest…  …It invests the other 95% of its worth.  This endowment is managed by Bill Gates Investments, which handles Gates’ personal fortune.  Monica Harrington, a senior policy officer at the foundation, said the investment managers had one goal: returns “that will allow for the continued funding of foundation programs and grant making.” …   …at least $8.7 billion, or 41% of its assets, not including U.S. and foreign government securities — have been in companies that countered the foundation’s charitable goals or socially concerned philosophy…  …The Gates Foundation is a major shareholder in the companies that own both of the polluting plants.  As of September, the foundation held $295 million worth of stock in BP, a co-owner of Sapref.  As of 2005, it held $35 million worth of stock in Royal Dutch Shell, Sapref’s other owner.  The foundation also held a $39-million investment in Anglo American, which owns the Mondi paper mill.   The foundation has held large investments in all three companies since at least 2002. Since then, the worth of BP shares has shot up by about 83%, Royal Dutch Shell shares by 77% and Anglo American shares about 255%. Dividends have padded the foundation’s assets by additional millions of dollars.

This is a tremendous problem.  Global warming is a Gordian Knot that cannot have a good solution.

Possibly the Gates Foundation thinks that the required paradigm shift would be too great for people to face, even for the Gates Foundation.   Their web site lists hundreds of helpful projects they currently fund world-wide. Certainly mitigating warming would require a direct frontal attack on the carbon dioxide generation that is such a part of our industrialized civilization.  This will greatly disturb the global economy.

I hope the Gates foundation is getting ready to make a decisive move.  Because climate is changing, warming and destabilizing - and they will need to change, or be left behind.

In the last few years, the language in global warming policy papers stopped using the more hopeful term “fix” or “solve” the global warming problem.  It is beyond fixing.  Unless we revert to a pre-industrial state for 1000 years , it is too late to fix.  The the recently released NOAA report says “how changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide (CO ₂ ) emissions are completely stopped”. 

Now the language has changed.  According to the Annual Review of Public Health society has three basic options for responding to human-caused climate change:  

Mitigateby reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from energy and land use or capturing them from the atmosphere to retard or, perhaps, reverse the extra heating of Earth caused by GHG build-up in the atmosphere.

Adapt by reducing the negative effects of climate change through such measures as protecting coastlines, moving populations away from impacted areas, increasing efforts to control climate-related vector-borne diseases, and insulating cities from heat stress.

Suffer because climate changes already seem to be underway and that efforts in the first two arenas above are moving slowly. Even with major mitigation and adaptation efforts, suffering will likely increase, perhaps considerably in poorer parts of the world, because of the climate change committed already.

part 3  Recommending specific actions

… behavioral economics, game theory, and neuroscience have confirmed that human behavior is … “irrational” … the standard economic approach to climate change policy, with its almost exclusive emphasis on rational responses to monetary incentives, is seriously flawed. In fact, monetary incentives may actually be counter-productive.”
— John M. Gowdy   http://www.economics.rpi.edu/workingpapers/rpi0701.pdf

So completely settled is the science of global warming that arguments among climatologists are now mostly about the “when?” and the “how bad?”    
No one wants the climate to destabilize, few want to hear much more about global warming, and damn few want to make the necessary changes to face the problem.   It’s necessary to move beyond the hard sciences if our goal is to discover how to best mitigate and adapt.   We must engage other disciplines in our effort.

Even though reacting to climate change requires a colossal and unified crusade, there is no assurance - neither scientific, nor human - that we will prevail.   We may all agree that we must survive, but the hard science says survival could go either way.   The most active variable in the equation is the human one.   Now, more than any other time, our future depends on controlling our output of greenhouse gases.

To build the necessary world-wide campaign we must expand our studies to include political science, public policy, law, marketing, persuasion, and other soft sciences.   In order to build, sustain and enforce cooperative efforts, both the leaders and participants in this campaign need a prerequisite understanding of human psychology, economics, game theory, and behavioral psychology.

The experiment goes like this:   With only two subjects, one receives a sum of money that both will agree on how to split.   One decides how much to give to the other - the other person may accept or reject the offer.   If accepted then both keep whatever money they hold.   However, if the other person rejects the offer - then by refusing - prevents both of them from getting any cash.   Game over; the test only is given once.

Results differ; many test subjects settle on a 50%-50% split.   Some accept a smaller percentage - but rarely less than 20%.   Interestingly, the data for Western subjects measures slightly more - 30-40%… suggesting a greater willingness to cut off all wealth gain until reaching a higher fairness level.   It is important to remember that recipients know the rules of the game, know the total cash amount in the game and know the consequence of their decision to accept or reject. 

When pondering ramifications, economists prefer to think of humans as rational actors who would logically choose the best deal in any situation.   Rational actions are easier to formulate and model.   However, an irrational choice - like rejecting all money and ending play with nothing tangible - is harder to understand.   Does the player have an irrational sense of fairness?   Or do players expect a certain level of shared suffering or shared reward?

Because the Ultimatum Game uses real money, it may connect with reality in ways that other games might not.   Depending on the weight of the irrational, players of the Ultimatum Game finish with cash or with nothing .   Every day in the real world, the owners and consumers of carbon based energy grow richer or poorer, stronger or weaker, healthier or ill, depending on their energy transactions.   It may be fueling transportation, heating homes, or providing electricity for manufacturing.   Slowly, as these consumers begin to understand that all fossil fuels increase CO2 and contribute to global warming, this means their daily energy transactions get a new variable to consider.   The rational benefit of energy begins to take on the taint of the irrational burden of knowing this is causing real damage.

Our civilization is in the midst of a real-world experimental play of the Ultimatum Game.   One player redistributes great carbon energy wealth pulled from the earth, and the other player receives the benefit of that offer.   Our incredibly cheap energy from coal, oil, and natural gas combustion all release CO2 into the atmosphere.   CO2 reacts slowly, but directly contributes to greenhouse heating in the atmosphere.   The effects of CO2, not obvious at first, is very real - it slowly traps heat, warms the atmosphere globally which destabilizes climate.   We are killing ourselves.  We can no longer exclude this fact from considered commercial transactions

Behavioral economists have another test - a related game called the Dictator game.  Here the player with cash keeps as much as they wish - whether or not an offer to share is accepted.   Predictably, dictators offer far less money to the other player, keeping a larger share of the cash.   With no real choice, the recipient player most always accepts unequal money in any amount.

In the marketplace of energy, the ultimatum and the dictator analogies apply because in our civilization game, energy is a vital element required of both commerce and survival.   The recipient player can assume both attitudes - the player demanding a fair share - at other times the player accepting whatever is offered.

Typically, fossil fuel commerce might include a privileged holder of energy wealth, sharing or selling to a less privileged player.   The less privileged ones may accept a dictated market price, favorably received until the deal changes unacceptably, the player refuses and it the becomes an ultimatum game.   Perhaps the privileged one goes too far in crossing some personally defined line.   Maybe the player senses a deceit, some manipulation, denial, an ethical transgression or other irrational motive.   Now, with new information, players must include future ramifications of any energy deal.

Both the Ultimatum and the Dictator games seem to fit into scenarios of the market play of Big Coal and Big Oil in our economy.   Carbon fuel industries - with a monopolistic lock on the market - will sell energy and heavily promote full consumption of all they can deliver.