Innovating to zero! | Bill Gates

Innovating to zero! | Bill Gates

I’m going to talk today
about energy and climate. And that might seem a bit surprising, because my full-time work
at the foundation is mostly about vaccines and seeds, about the things that we need
to invent and deliver to help the poorest two billion
live better lives. But energy and climate
are extremely important to these people; in fact, more important
than to anyone else on the planet. The climate getting worse means
that many years, their crops won’t grow: there will be too much rain,
not enough rain; things will change in ways their fragile
environment simply can’t support. And that leads to starvation, it leads
to uncertainty, it leads to unrest. So, the climate changes
will be terrible for them. Also, the price of energy
is very important to them. In fact, if you could pick just one thing to lower the price of to reduce poverty,
by far you would pick energy. Now, the price of energy
has come down over time. Really advanced civilization
is based on advances in energy. The coal revolution fueled
the Industrial Revolution, and, even in the 1900s,
we’ve seen a very rapid decline in the price of electricity, and that’s why we have
refrigerators, air-conditioning; we can make modern materials
and do so many things. And so, we’re in a wonderful situation
with electricity in the rich world. But as we make it cheaper —
and let’s say, let’s go for making it twice as cheap — we need to meet a new constraint, and that constraint has to do with CO2. CO2 is warming the planet, and the equation on CO2
is actually a very straightforward one. If you sum up the CO2 that gets emitted, that leads to a temperature increase, and that temperature increase
leads to some very negative effects: the effects on the weather;
perhaps worse, the indirect effects, in that the natural ecosystems
can’t adjust to these rapid changes, and so you get ecosystem collapses. Now, the exact amount of how you map
from a certain increase of CO2 to what temperature will be,
and where the positive feedbacks are — there’s some uncertainty there,
but not very much. And there’s certainly uncertainty
about how bad those effects will be, but they will be extremely bad. I asked the top scientists
on this several times: Do we really have to get
down to near zero? Can’t we just cut it in half or a quarter? And the answer is,
until we get near to zero, the temperature will continue to rise. And so that’s a big challenge. It’s very different than saying, “We’re a twelve-foot-high truck
trying to get under a ten-foot bridge, and we can just sort of squeeze under.” This is something that has to get to zero. Now, we put out a lot
of carbon dioxide every year — over 26 billion tons. For each American, it’s about 20 tons. For people in poor countries,
it’s less than one ton. It’s an average of about five tons
for everyone on the planet. And somehow, we have to make changes
that will bring that down to zero. It’s been constantly going up. It’s only various economic changes
that have even flattened it at all, so we have to go
from rapidly rising to falling, and falling all the way to zero. This equation has four factors,
a little bit of multiplication. So you’ve got a thing on the left,
CO2, that you want to get to zero, and that’s going to be based
on the number of people, the services each person
is using on average, the energy, on average, for each service, and the CO2 being put out
per unit of energy. So let’s look at each one of these, and see how we can get this down to zero. Probably, one of these numbers is going
to have to get pretty near to zero. (Laughter) That’s back from high school algebra. But let’s take a look. First, we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job
on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by,
perhaps, 10 or 15 percent. But there, we see
an increase of about 1.3. The second factor is the services we use. This encompasses everything: the food we eat, clothing, TV, heating. These are very good things. Getting rid of poverty means
providing these services to almost everyone on the planet. And it’s a great thing
for this number to go up. In the rich world, perhaps
the top one billion, we probably could cut back and use less, but every year, this number,
on average, is going to go up, and so, overall,
that will more than double the services delivered per person. Here we have a very basic service: Do you have lighting in your house
to be able to read your homework? And, in fact, these kids don’t, so they’re going out and reading
their schoolwork under the street lamps. Now, efficiency, “E,”
the energy for each service — here, finally we have some good news. We have something that’s not going up. Through various inventions
and new ways of doing lighting, through different types of cars,
different ways of building buildings — there are a lot of services where you can bring the energy
for that service down quite substantially. Some individual services
even bring it down by 90 percent. There are other services,
like how we make fertilizer, or how we do air transport, where the rooms for improvement
are far, far less. And so overall, if we’re optimistic,
we may get a reduction of a factor of three to even,
perhaps, a factor of six. But for these first three factors now, we’ve gone from 26 billion
to, at best, maybe 13 billion tons, and that just won’t cut it. So let’s look at this fourth factor —
this is going to be a key one — and this is the amount of CO2
put out per each unit of energy. So the question is:
Can you actually get that to zero? If you burn coal, no. If you burn natural gas, no. Almost every way
we make electricity today, except for the emerging renewables
and nuclear, puts out CO2. And so, what we’re going to have
to do at a global scale, is create a new system. So we need energy miracles. Now, when I use the term “miracle,”
I don’t mean something that’s impossible. The microprocessor is a miracle. The personal computer is a miracle. The Internet and its services
are a miracle. So the people here have participated
in the creation of many miracles. Usually, we don’t have a deadline where you have to get the miracle
by a certain date. Usually, you just kind of stand by,
and some come along, some don’t. This is a case where we actually
have to drive at full speed and get a miracle
in a pretty tight timeline. Now, I thought, “How could
I really capture this? Is there some kind
of natural illustration, some demonstration that would grab
people’s imagination here?” I thought back to a year ago
when I brought mosquitoes, and somehow people enjoyed that. (Laughter) It really got them involved
in the idea of, you know, there are people who live with mosquitoes. With energy, all I could
come up with is this. I decided that releasing fireflies would be my contribution
to the environment here this year. So here we have some natural fireflies. I’m told they don’t bite; in fact,
they might not even leave that jar. (Laughter) Now, there’s all sorts of gimmicky
solutions like that one, but they don’t really add up to much. We need solutions, either one or several, that have unbelievable scale
and unbelievable reliability. And although there’s many directions
that people are seeking, I really only see five
that can achieve the big numbers. I’ve left out tide,
geothermal, fusion, biofuels. Those may make some contribution, and if they can do better
than I expect, so much the better. But my key point here
is that we’re going to have to work on each of these five, and we can’t give up any of them
because they look daunting, because they all have
significant challenges. Let’s look first at burning fossil fuels, either burning coal
or burning natural gas. What you need to do there seems
like it might be simple, but it’s not. And that’s to take all the CO2, after you’ve burned it,
going out the flue, pressurize it, create a liquid,
put it somewhere, and hope it stays there. Now, we have some pilot things that do this at the 60 to 80
percent level. But getting up to that full percentage —
that will be very tricky. And agreeing on where these CO2
quantities should be put will be hard, but the toughest one here
is this long-term issue: Who’s going to be sure? Who’s going to guarantee something that is literally
billions of times larger than any type of waste you think of
in terms of nuclear or other things? This is a lot of volume. So that’s a tough one. Next would be nuclear. It also has three big problems: cost, particularly in highly
regulated countries, is high; the issue of safety, really feeling good
about nothing could go wrong, that, even though you have
these human operators, the fuel doesn’t get used for weapons. And then what do you do with the waste? Although it’s not very large,
there are a lot of concerns about that. People need to feel good about it. So three very tough problems
that might be solvable, and so, should be worked on. The last three of the five,
I’ve grouped together. These are what people often refer to
as the renewable sources. And they actually — although it’s great
they don’t require fuel — they have some disadvantages. One is that the density of energy
gathered in these technologies is dramatically less than a power plant. This is energy farming, so you’re talking about many square miles,
thousands of times more area than you think of
as a normal energy plant. Also, these are intermittent sources. The sun doesn’t shine all day,
it doesn’t shine every day, and likewise, the wind
doesn’t blow all the time. And so, if you depend on these sources, you have to have some way
of getting the energy during those time periods
that it’s not available. So we’ve got big cost challenges here. We have transmission challenges; for example, say this energy source
is outside your country, you not only need the technology, but you have to deal with the risk
of the energy coming from elsewhere. And, finally, this storage problem. To dimensionalize this, I went through and looked
at all the types of batteries made — for cars, for computers, for phones,
for flashlights, for everything — and compared that to the amount
of electrical energy the world uses. What I found is that all
the batteries we make now could store less than 10 minutes
of all the energy. And so, in fact, we need
a big breakthrough here, something that’s going to be
a factor of 100 better than the approaches we have now. It’s not impossible,
but it’s not a very easy thing. Now, this shows up when you try
to get the intermittent source to be above, say, 20 to 30 percent
of what you’re using. If you’re counting on it for 100 percent, you need an incredible miracle battery. Now, how are we going to go forward
on this — what’s the right approach? Is it a Manhattan Project?
What’s the thing that can get us there? Well, we need lots of companies
working on this — hundreds. In each of these five paths,
we need at least a hundred people. A lot of them, you’ll look at
and say, “They’re crazy.” That’s good. And, I think, here in the TED group, we have many people
who are already pursuing this. Bill Gross has several companies,
including one called eSolar that has some great
solar thermal technologies. Vinod Khosla is investing
in dozens of companies that are doing great things
and have interesting possibilities, and I’m trying to help back that. Nathan Myhrvold and I
actually are backing a company that, perhaps surprisingly,
is actually taking the nuclear approach. There are some innovations
in nuclear: modular, liquid. Innovation really stopped
in this industry quite some ago, so the idea that there’s some
good ideas laying around is not all that surprising. The idea of TerraPower is that,
instead of burning a part of uranium — the one percent, which is the U235 — we decided, “Let’s burn
the 99 percent, the U238.” It is kind of a crazy idea. In fact, people had talked
about it for a long time, but they could never simulate properly
whether it would work or not, and so it’s through the advent
of modern supercomputers that now you can simulate
and see that, yes, with the right materials approach,
this looks like it would work. And because you’re burning
that 99 percent, you have greatly improved cost profile. You actually burn up the waste,
and you can actually use as fuel all the leftover waste
from today’s reactors. So instead of worrying about them,
you just take that, it’s a great thing. It breeds this uranium as it goes along,
so it’s kind of like a candle. You see it’s a log there, often
referred to as a traveling wave reactor. In terms of fuel,
this really solves the problem. I’ve got a picture here
of a place in Kentucky. This is the leftover, the 99 percent, where they’ve taken out
the part they burn now, so it’s called depleted uranium. That would power the US
for hundreds of years. And simply by filtering seawater
in an inexpensive process, you’d have enough fuel for the entire
lifetime of the rest of the planet. So, you know, it’s got lots
of challenges ahead, but it is an example of the many
hundreds and hundreds of ideas that we need to move forward. So let’s think: How should
we measure ourselves? What should our report card look like? Well, let’s go out to where
we really need to get, and then look at the intermediate. For 2050, you’ve heard many people
talk about this 80 percent reduction. That really is very important,
that we get there. And that 20 percent will be used up
by things going on in poor countries — still some agriculture; hopefully,
we will have cleaned up forestry, cement. So, to get to that 80 percent, the developed countries,
including countries like China, will have had to switch
their electricity generation altogether. The other grade is: Are we deploying
this zero-emission technology, have we deployed it
in all the developed countries and are in the process
of getting it elsewhere? That’s super important. That’s a key element
of making that report card. Backing up from there, what should
the 2020 report card look like? Well, again, it should have
the two elements. We should go through these efficiency
measures to start getting reductions: The less we emit,
the less that sum will be of CO2, and therefore, the less the temperature. But in some ways, the grade we get there, doing things that don’t get us
all the way to the big reductions, is only equally, or maybe even slightly
less, important than the other, which is the piece of innovation
on these breakthroughs. These breakthroughs,
we need to move those at full speed, and we can measure that
in terms of companies, pilot projects, regulatory things
that have been changed. There’s a lot of great books
that have been written about this. The Al Gore book, “Our Choice,” and the David MacKay book,
“Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air.” They really go through it
and create a framework that this can be discussed broadly, because we need broad backing for this. There’s a lot that has to come together. So this is a wish. It’s a very concrete wish
that we invent this technology. If you gave me only one wish
for the next 50 years — I could pick who’s president, I could pick a vaccine,
which is something I love, or I could pick that this thing that’s half the cost with no CO2
gets invented — this is the wish I would pick. This is the one with the greatest impact. If we don’t get this wish, the division between the people
who think short term and long term will be terrible, between the US and China,
between poor countries and rich, and most of all, the lives of those two billion
will be far worse. So what do we have to do? What am I appealing to you
to step forward and drive? We need to go for more research funding. When countries get together
in places like Copenhagen, they shouldn’t just discuss the CO2. They should discuss
this innovation agenda. You’d be stunned at the ridiculously
low levels of spending on these innovative approaches. We do need the market incentives —
CO2 tax, cap and trade — something that gets
that price signal out there. We need to get the message out. We need to have this dialogue
be a more rational, more understandable dialogue, including the steps
that the government takes. This is an important wish,
but it is one I think we can achieve. Thank you. (Applause) (Applause ends) Thank you. Chris Anderson: Thank you. Thank you. (Applause) CA: Thank you. So to understand more about TerraPower. I mean, first of all, can you give a sense
of what scale of investment this is? Bill Gates: To actually do the software,
buy the supercomputer, hire all the great scientists,
which we’ve done, that’s only tens of millions. And even once we test our materials out
in a Russian reactor to make sure our materials work properly, then you’ll only be up
in the hundreds of millions. The tough thing
is building the pilot reactor — finding the several billion,
finding the regulator, the location that will actually build
the first one of these. Once you get the first one built,
if it works as advertised, then it’s just clear as day, because the economics,
the energy density, are so different than nuclear as we know it. CA: So to understand it right, this involves building
deep into the ground, almost like a vertical column
of nuclear fuel, of this spent uranium, and then the process starts
at the top and kind of works down? BG: That’s right. Today, you’re always
refueling the reactor, so you have lots of people and lots
of controls that can go wrong, where you’re opening it up
and moving things in and out — that’s not good. So if you have very — (Laughter) very cheap fuel
that you can put 60 years in — just think of it as a log — put it down and not have
those same complexities. And it just sits there and burns
for the 60 years, and then it’s done. CA: It’s a nuclear power plant
that is its own waste disposal solution. BG: Yeah; what happens with the waste, you can let it sit there — there’s a lot
less waste under this approach — then you can actually take that and put it into another one and burn that. And we start out, actually,
by taking the waste that exists today that’s sitting in these cooling pools
or dry-casking by reactors — that’s our fuel to begin with. So the thing that’s been a problem
from those reactors is actually what gets fed into ours, and you’re reducing the volume
of the waste quite dramatically as you’re going through this process. CA: You’re talking
to different people around the world about the possibilities. Where is there most interest
in actually doing something with this? BG: Well, we haven’t picked
a particular place, and there’s all these interesting
disclosure rules about anything that’s called “nuclear.” So we’ve got a lot of interest. People from the company
have been in Russia, India, China. I’ve been back seeing
the secretary of energy here, talking about how this fits
into the energy agenda. So I’m optimistic. The French and Japanese
have done some work. This is a variant on something
that has been done. It’s an important advance,
but it’s like a fast reactor, and a lot of countries have built them, so anybody who’s done
a fast reactor is a candidate to be where the first one gets built. CA: So, in your mind, timescale and likelihood of actually
taking something like this live? BG: Well, we need — for one of these
high-scale, electro-generation things that’s very cheap, we have 20 years to invent
and then 20 years to deploy. That’s sort of the deadline that the environmental models
have shown us that we have to meet. And TerraPower — if things go well,
which is wishing for a lot — could easily meet that. And there are, fortunately
now, dozens of companies — we need it to be hundreds — who, likewise, if their science goes well, if the funding for their pilot
plants goes well, that they can compete for this. And it’s best if multiple succeed, because then you could use
a mix of these things. We certainly need one to succeed. CA: In terms of big-scale
possible game changers, is this the biggest
that you’re aware of out there? BG: An energy breakthrough
is the most important thing. It would have been, even
without the environmental constraint, but the environmental constraint
just makes it so much greater. In the nuclear space,
there are other innovators. You know, we don’t know their work
as well as we know this one, but the modular people,
that’s a different approach. There’s a liquid-type reactor,
which seems a little hard, but maybe they say that about us. And so, there are different ones, but the beauty of this
is a molecule of uranium has a million times as much energy
as a molecule of, say, coal. And so, if you can
deal with the negatives, which are essentially the radiation,
the footprint and cost, the potential, in terms of effect
on land and various things, is almost in a class of its own. CA: If this doesn’t work, then what? Do we have to start taking
emergency measures to try and keep the temperature
of the earth stable? BG: If you get into that situation, it’s like if you’ve been overeating,
and you’re about to have a heart attack. Then where do you go? You may need heart surgery or something. There is a line of research
on what’s called geoengineering, which are various techniques
that would delay the heating to buy us 20 or 30 years
to get our act together. Now, that’s just an insurance policy;
you hope you don’t need to do that. Some people say you shouldn’t even
work on the insurance policy because it might make you lazy, that you’ll keep eating because you know
heart surgery will be there to save you. I’m not sure that’s wise,
given the importance of the problem, but there’s now
the geoengineering discussion about: Should that be in the back
pocket in case things happen faster, or this innovation goes
a lot slower than we expect? CA: Climate skeptics: If you had a sentence or two
to say to them, how might you persuade them
that they’re wrong? BG: Well, unfortunately,
the skeptics come in different camps. The ones who make scientific
arguments are very few. Are they saying there’s negative
feedback effects that have to do with clouds
that offset things? There are very, very few things
that they can even say there’s a chance
in a million of those things. The main problem we have here —
it’s kind of like with AIDS: you make the mistake now,
and you pay for it a lot later. And so, when you have
all sorts of urgent problems, the idea of taking pain now
that has to do with a gain later, and a somewhat uncertain pain thing. In fact, the IPCC report —
that’s not necessarily the worst case, and there are people in the rich world
who look at IPCC and say, “OK, that isn’t that big of a deal.” The fact is it’s that uncertain part
that should move us towards this. But my dream here is that, if you can make it economic,
and meet the CO2 constraints, then the skeptics say, “OK, I don’t care
that it doesn’t put out CO2, I kind of wish it did put out CO2. But I guess I’ll accept it, because it’s cheaper
than what’s come before.” (Applause) CA: So that would be your response
to the Bjørn Lomborg argument, basically if you spend all this energy
trying to solve the CO2 problem, it’s going to take away
all your other goals of trying to rid the world
of poverty and malaria and so forth, it’s a stupid waste
of the Earth’s resources to put money towards that when there are better things we can do. BG: Well, the actual
spending on the R&D piece — say the US should spend 10 billion a year
more than it is right now — it’s not that dramatic. It shouldn’t take away from other things. The thing you get into big money on,
and reasonable people can disagree, is when you have something
that’s non-economic and you’re trying to fund that — that, to me, mostly is a waste. Unless you’re very close, and you’re just funding the learning curve
and it’s going to get very cheap, I believe we should try more things that have a potential
to be far less expensive. If the trade-off you get into is,
“Let’s make energy super expensive,” then the rich can afford that. I mean, all of us here could pay
five times as much for our energy and not change our lifestyle. The disaster is for that two billion. And even Lomborg has changed. His shtick now is, “Why isn’t the R&D
getting more discussed?” He’s still, because of his earlier stuff, still associated with the skeptic camp, but he’s realized
that’s a pretty lonely camp, and so, he’s making the R&D point. And so there is a thread of something
that I think is appropriate. The R&D piece —
it’s crazy how little it’s funded. CA: Well, Bill, I suspect I speak
on behalf of most people here to say I really hope your wish comes true. Thank you so much. BG: Thank you. (Applause)

You May Also Like

About the Author: Oren Garnes


  1. The principle is easy, there is CO2 production rate (from combustion, biological respiration etc) and then there is CO2 reduction rate (photosynthesis etc). if the rate of reduction is much higher than the rate of production, eventually the CO2 content will go down to as close to zero). To achieve that, we can do 2 things, 1) increase elements that could reduce CO2 ( Plant more trees etc) or 2) reduce CO2 production (produce energy efficiently or switch to renewable energy, reduce CO2 producing process in production facilities etc).
    And for that to have a global effect, the whole world needs to participate. That is what he is trying to achieve basically.

  2. Beware of people that cover themselves or shroud themselves in Good Deeds because they're real intent it's not the help but to control everyday people because they think they are smarter and we cannot make decisions for our self, I don't know his whole total Financial commitments but if he's involved with Monsanto that is a very bad deal GMO seeds and the modern farming they hold Hostage to all the farmers to have to use GMO seeds and all of the kinds of bad stuff a food supply is in bad shape as far as being healthy or not it's not healthy that's why people are so sick how do you spell a very arrogant human being one that has a public face and a private View and they are contradictory, this is my own opinion I leave it up to you to check out just don't buy everything this guy says always look at the facts and it seems to be hard to find out the facts about him or is. I hope I'm wrong about him but anybody that's rich enough to have a foundation is generally not always pure good in the past there were quite a few rich people involved in eugenics I believe he's just a continuation of that mindset I heard that ham and Jeff Bezos all I similar paths and Bezos with his Amazon company and all the other stuff he does with the government the United States and perhaps the rest of the world seems to be out of balance like I said between the vaccines and the seeds that control our food this could be a sick way of getting rid of people population control and just leaving enough people to serve the rich. My opinion not forcing it on anybody else.

  3. Wich is the relation between CO2 and global warming? All they show are disasters, ok, but there isn't any proof of it. CO2 must be the gas of life, because it should increase the enviroment productivity. They breath CO2, and give us O2.

    If someone disagree, please tell me the truth!

  4. Oh, I got it! Bill said that better life condition would make people have less children, and I agree. I thought he was talking about reducing them by vaccines, like litteraly killing!

  5. 22:57 Here are environmental problems to let Bill Gates strong mood appeared for a second, and then he quickly put his emotions calm down, his emotional control is really powerful!

  6. Looking at this in 2019 it is interesting to look at his proposals in light of all the information that is now available for people to see. For example, things that we know such as free energy with absolutely no pollution whatsoever for all people is available and has been demonstrated by Nicola Tesla. Vaccines will be used to reduce population but people just will not believe what they hear, they will say it means something else. He tells us what it will be used for. From sometime in the 1700s somebody wrote that the world can only sustain 3 billion people. The suffering in the world is not caused from the number of people nor a lack of resources. It is caused from the choice that has been made to make people suffer by design. The main cause of disease and the spread of disease in unhealthy living conditions- dirty polluted water, polluted and genetically modified foods, the use of chemicals in the air and on foods and a host of other things which are done for one purpose-profits to enrich the few and the power to maintain that system thorough conditioning (the use of religion and our education system) and force.

  7. Dear Earth citizens, what does it mean "to cut population through vaccines"? Did he want to interfere with immune systems in children??!!!

  8. If you printed everything this very intelligent man just said, that become super rich in his field of expertise. you could put it on toilet paper & never run out, due to all the smoke he just blew up your rear end! Basically all he is really pushing is, the elitist are not satisfied with all the wars they create for thinning the population isn't getting rid of us "Little People" as they call us, fast enough. All the while financing both sides of every war. We consume to much water, food, gas, electricity & all the other amenities. Yet they live in 20,000 +/- square feet mansions & have servants doing everything for them for menial wages, including driving them around in luxurious gas guzzling limousines. They use thousands of gallons of water just to keep a plush green lawn. They have huge, lavish parties to show off their wealth & hobnob. Then go get in their big luxurious fast fuel guzzling private jet traveling around the world at will. When bored, they go get on their multi-million dollar fuel guzzling yacht & throw another lavish party. They also use thousands & thousands of kilowatts a day in electricity. Bill Gates is a New World Order spokesman & does not give a damn about "We The People" that are not in his league or status except, he needs us to keep his business running & us scattered around the world using his products, making him & his wife richer.

  9. 4' 35'' – "Il primo fattore è LA POPOLAZIONE. Il mondo ha oggi 6,8 miliardi di abitanti. Ci dirigiamo verso i 9 miliardi.
    —-> Se facciamo un buon lavoro CON I "NUOVI" VACCINI,  la sanità, la salute riproduttiva,
    —-> POSSIAMO DIMINUIRLA forse del 10, 15%,

    ma qui registriamo un aumento di circa il 30%." !?!!!!!!!!

  10. To me he is an evil man trying to depopulate people by vaccinations,food ect. Do us a favore and start depopulation with yourself. We can't have zero CO2, we will have less plants,trees,less food, CO2 is needed check the Vostok studies ! I can't listen to this propaganda.

  11. Damn Sheeps want to applaud this man when he's telling them exactly how he's gonna kill us all through Vaccinations and Eugenics! Fucking Sheeps yo!

  12. To all the people saying vaccinations will eliminate the population growth because healthy people have less children..well, this is my thought.

    If they REALLY cared about our health then why do we have fluoridated water, poisons sprayed on our foods, a pharmacy company that creates worse side effects than anything we are treating & built completely upon things that cause cancer?

    You cant convince me this is about making anyone healthy when even the FDA seems to want the exact oppsite. There is way too much corruption in America.

    (& yes, it may be everywhere else too…but my family, myself & my son is in America so if im gonna focus on anywhere its gonna at least start here. 🤷)

  13. Is he crazy? Reduce CO2 to zero? Is he trying to kill all humanity and all the animals and plants and reduce the earth to a lifeless rock? Maybe he wants the earth to crash like his Windows.

  14. He said wat he want to do, listen from 4.40 minutes and up in the video. He said strength up to lover population.

  15. So in other words, the population is growing and we need to m kill off the poor folks and us rich will just use less! So we are like cattle to them and slaves! And when we exceed growth time to thin the herd… With mandatory VACCINATIONS, and to do that they need a so called epidemic disguised as measles. Bam scare them they'll come running for safety and line right up. In Oklahoma they are just now calling for MMR VACCINATIONS. I see it spreading everywhere and then becoming mandatory, or go to jail. Bastards!!

  16. Did anyone else notice all the recent censorship on the videos highliting what was said at 4:25? You know the part where he admits that they're using vaccinations for population control

  17. If they werent that many people his business wouldnt have been this good. 2nd changing to nuclear reduces co2 to good level. We have another milion years to move to another planet. It just shows how he should be the first to sacrefice his own life for the good of this planet.

  18. 4:32 First, we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people; that’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services; we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent…. but there we see an INCREASE of about 1.3

    I do believe there's a nefarious conspiracy to decrease the population of those who are a part of the global majority that's the so called third world; however, we're looking at only the shock of a partial soundbite; Gates admitted that while there would be an initial decline in population growth, that it would eventually lead to an "increase of about 1.3." I logically assume this is a percentage he's speaking of. Either way, the spread of these human services would see an initial decline in population growth, followed by an eventual increase. I'm almost inclined to agree with him here if I weren't a part of the growing aware/awoke roster that sees and believes the poison contained in vaccines & the eugenic motives of reproductive health services are aimed at not just population control, but specifically the decrease of lower tier populations and the growth of elite ones.

  19. Now they act gods!!.. america brought nothing but destruction to the world soon they will pay the price

  20. His words listen very carefully children. To THem? Who you. Now listen to Him speak on vaccinations abortion and population control. Who is the target and why

  21. He admitted to wanting to lower the world's population by vaccines & healthcare! He is tied to genocide in poor countries, and by making those in need sterile. He is a sick sick man!

  22. With all his money, don't you think he could actually fund an independent, double blind safety study with all those vaccines, you know, the one that compares the non vaccinated against the vaccine? That has never been done.

  23. How do vaccines lower population?? Research anti-fertility vaccines!! HCG in tetanus vaccine!!

    Who knew fertility was a disease to prevented!!?? These demonic bastids!!

  24. Wow, a 30 minutes TED speech from an actual "somebody" with something to say and not a word of virtue signalling? Now we've seen it all.

  25. Getting CO2 to zero would kill all plant life you death cult creep. There's no way to suger coat "if we do a good job with vaccines, healthcare and reproductive health services we could reduce that by 10 to 15 percent". Guess what Lucifer Gates, you are not God and you don't get to decide who lives and who dies! You can start your CO2 reduction plan by going to one of your plan parenthood's and requesting a post birth abortion for yourself.

  26. Lucifer Gates is a lying sack of horse sheit. Geoengineering has been going on since the 1960's it's not a new thing and what he calls " an insurance policy" It's also the main cause of the problem and not CO2. He should be talking about how to stop Geoengineering.

  27. SO he is saying that GOD did not know that too many people would cause the earth's crisis!! SO even though God said to go out and multiply, Billy Boy is saying God made a Big Mistake??? Yeah right, what a demon this loser is. He needs a dose of his own vaccines!

  28. Billy boys Daddy was head of planned parenthood . And we all know that they don’t plan parenthood they plan abortions. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. You’re not one of the elite he wants you dead 💀

  29. Bill Gates is a mass murderer….he has just admitted that they are going to hit the black population with weather control….he is such a liar…..DO NOT SUPPORT THIS MAN….BRING HIM DOWN AND PUT HIM IN PRISON….THERE IS OTHER SOLUTIONS THEY ARE NOT TELLING US ABOUT…..YouTube – ….. to see exactly what they are doing but is being discovered….spread and share and lets put these people in prison and take away their wealth as they are the evil elite….

  30. I will tell you exactly what he deliberately avoids 1 hydro electric dams, they are stable and proven, so he carefully avoided mentioning them, 2 he Also avoided mentioning the nuclear impact of Fukushima, at present the barrier that was supposed to stop the rods failed, the rods went right through the barrier, through the water table, and are now in the volcano magma tubes super heating the magma all across the ring of fire, Yellowstone is going almost Hollywood style, and we are measuring swell of mount saint Helens for the second time in my life, I hope that I don't have to tell you what the flooding in central USA means for the post Fukushima era. Now their is a solution that i came up with some time ago, I think I came up with in 1998 or so that could have saved us, I say could have because the clock has been ticking this whole time and Fukushima advanced the Timetable considerably, if all of the core of engineers and us descended into America and started drilling today, and installed sensors and fined waterways, and dynamite, we would still run out of time before we could compete the pressure reduction heat harnessing operation. That said, no one anywhere is ever going to agree to cooperate on such a massive project because each would insist that they have to be absolute ruler before they would put things in motion, and China Germany Russia USA UN, Cannot all rule absolutely over a single operation.

  31. and if we the ppl do nothing about this in ur face speech , then they just know we're dumb .. there should B an uproar !! this pos

  32. This evil person thinks of people as nothing. They think their plan will work but will be stopped. God will destroy these people in the future.

  33. Vaccines, Abortion, and the push for the LGBTQ movement are all about population control!! GENOCIDE!!! P.O.S.!!

  34. Zero carbon emissions means zero human beings! Do people not even understand what he just said?! God help us.

  35. As co2 drops to zero.. What happens to Trees plants animals and humans ? Zero co2 means No Plant life at a time when population is increasing and higher co2 is required to produce more vegetation to feed them.. no oxygen…. Will we suffer biological changes to adapt to lowered oxygen levels ? Without vegetation and animals what will we eat ? Reducing co2 may be great for rich people and transhumanists that can adapt but what happens to the other 9 billion on earth ?

  36. Who is "we" in the question: need to lower to a "zero". Because the people that run business don´t seem to want to do nothing but make more money…where do they thing the money is going to go if the planet explodes? And most of the humans want to keep in consuming? I been in this life for a long time, and the discussion and problem solving only evolve into more questions than answers…which is good if we have thinkers solving problems, but have we? I have notice that no matter what the threats are humans seen to be surviving them all…is a good increasing number for the "money/power makers"? Or…if there is another Universe to go to who would humans will go to it and on what conditions?

  37. We need more cattle! !!!! Want to know why? Checkout here on youtube sv3rige; the human apex predator VS mentally disabled vegans.

  38. What the @#!%$.. Carbon dioxide? Poverty? After 100 years and he's still there..duh I guess Im dead already..again what the @@%$&$!

  39. Rises in CO2 are followed by lowering of temperatures and it’s part of a natural cycle. He wants population to zero. New vaccines grantees the lowering by making the children sick, autistic or die from the disease it was supposed to prevent. We need the Tesla documents and Zero point energy patents released to be built and taken on line, such as the tower built in Texas or what the Kesha Foundation is proposing.

  40. Bill Gates addressing a TED conference: "The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about 9 billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care and reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent." Clear evidence of Gates' genocidal designs. (Forbidden Knowledge TV Feb. 2018

  41. Yes Dani Brandy, he said vaccines are going to be used to reduce the worlds population by 10-15%. Fast forward to present Catholic calendar year 2019 and Measles vaccines are being forced upon communities on the east coast! In 1974 the National Security Study Memorandum or NSSM-200, also called The Kissinger Report was published. Also during 1972-1978 American children and adults were given vaccinations for HPV which is known to cause infertility!

  42. This TED talk was filled with people LIKE William Gates! So, none of the people there were shocked at what he said! The goal is to help eliminate poverty by eliminating people in poverty! Think clearly!

  43. Psycopath needs to go first. Wake up people say no to forced vaccined. They want mandatory vaccines for everyone.

  44. ….-3,-2,-1,0,+1,+2,+3….
    Something is here ,but I am not clear.
    '0'carbon will happens in next 1/2 year ,from today2019 july15

  45. Eugenics human Resources Formula. CO₂=Px(People) Sx (Services) Ex (Energy per service)Cx (CO₂per unit Energy).

  46. All you have to is listen, "If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services we could lower that by 10-15%"
    WTF he's apart of UN's Agenda 21-30


  48. Lie – The sun drives the weather not Co2. His foundational information is wrong. Think people. You can't believe this stuff. CO2 is currently at about 400 PPM and 1000 would be ideal for the health of the earth. not 200 would be an extinction event for all life on earth.

  49. It is a KNOWN FACT that as things like medicine and healthcare improve, the rate of child birth also goes down. It's why developed countries like in North America and Europe are at often low or negative population growth even with immigration, compared to 3rd world countries like in Africa or the middle east. Bill Gates is not talking about killing people off, but reducing the ESTIMATED population of the future by lowering child births.

  50. Video was finally recently brought to my attention. I wondered if anyone else noticed the plans for reduction of population. As for the reproductive control they were of course referring to Planned Parenthood who is harvesting living fetuses for stem cell research in my opinion. Gates is not the only Elite with wishes to remove population. I did notice that this video was produced about 9 years ago. By now it should be obvious that all these actions have been implemented. Just no real action towards solving their so-called CO2 problem. They have been spraying aerosols from Jets to combat global warming. And doing so they have been killing Forest at high elevation which would be converting the CO2 into oxygen for all animal life to breathe. An 2003 global warming head already come to a standstill. Today we have already entered a grand solar minimum where is cooling the Earth

  51. He has 3 children but wants to sterilize as many people as possible. That is what he is paid by his overlords to do.


  53. All that money and Dressed like a poor fat kid of the class that has no choice but zero class generic Wal Mart clothes because they don't do Louis Vuitton in a plus Size lol

  54. 穷 10 几条毛巾很重要,我也怕他的毛巾被偷,因为是我的责任,不是很穷 10 几条毛巾都亏不起,你也不需要做生意了!

  55. 建好之后,我每个月就有租金收了,只要存够钱做翻新及更换设施工程,我就摇匹骨去了,米国,没有人民,全部工作人员,没有神马负担,责任不重。Mosqitoes 😓😂😖😰😱

  56. 提升好人数目及质量,是我的目标,赚钱是后来才发现需要的,所以才有世界和平 !!!何晶这辈子都学不懂 !!!

  57. 好人不会卖我一公斤豆芽菜,只会卖我一个人需要吃的份量,做生意凭良心,这就是我要制造的新新国家,希望可以蔓延到全世界 !!!人家写字卖 $10,我只卖 $6.80,做生意,不要砍人 !!!

  58. @4:36

    "The world today has 6.8 billion people, that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we can lower that by perhaps 10 or 15%. "

    Why would advancements in healthcare lead to a reduction of population ?

  59. Just because someone presents some statistics together, doesn’t mean they have valid points.

    Mr. gates, you are very accomplished, however, you are not God. Please search for a better solution that doesn’t involve eugenics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *