[ Music ]
>> Sponsored by the Institute
of Museum and Library Services.
[ Music ]
>> David M. Rubenstein:
Welcome everything.
I'm here with Bill Gates.
I'm David Rubenstein, and
today, were going to talk
about Bill's new book, How
to Avoid a Climate Disaster,
a book I read and thoroughly
enjoyed and learned a lot
but also a little depressed
about the problems,
how great they are.
So, Bill, the theme
of the National Book
Festival this year is,
open a book, open the world.
How important are books to you?
Were you a good reader when you
were little, or did you not read
that much in terms of book?
>> Bill Gates: I was super
lucky that a grandmother
in particular read a lot of
books to me and my sisters,
and that developed
a love of books.
You know, she picked,
you know, Dr. Doolittle,
lots of fun stuff, and then
when I was able to read,
I was very avid, and over the
summers there was always a
public library would
have a contest
about who could read a lot
of books, and an addiction
to reading has been a
key secret of my success.
>> David M. Rubenstein: And
you have a book collection,
I think in the scientific area.
Why have you been focusing
on scientific books
and is your most famous
one the Leonardo Codex?
>> Bill Gates: Yeah,
that's problem the most
valuable book I have.
I have an Adam Smith Wealth
of Nations book, you know,
some authors that I like, like
J.D. Salinger, I have the,
you know, draft edition
of Catcher in the Rye.
I'm very lucky to have a library
with some amazing things in it,
and you know, I make
sure those circulate
out so people can see them.
It's a joy to have
all those great books.
>> David M. Rubenstein: So,
let's talk about this book.
You have been famous for
your foundation of focusing
on let's say two issues
initially, education and health
in the most challenged
areas in the world.
Is this a new area
you're going to take
on through the foundation,
or are you doing this
outside the foundation,
the whole climate issue?
>> Bill Gates: Yeah,
my exposure to climate
as a significant
problem, actually,
came because of the
foundation's work in Africa,
and we were working with a
lot of farmers there because,
of course, the more productive
they are at growing food,
the more we can avoid
malnutrition,
and that is a big
predictor of health.
And so, what they were saying is
that their crops were
getting worse, and so,
I entered into a 15-year journey
of learning about climate.
Part of the climate
work we need to do
to help those developing
countries, mostly Africa,
that's done through the
foundation, so better seeds,
better ways of collecting water.
But the change to
the energy system
and the industrial things I'm
doing outside the foundation
by funding new companies,
and a broad set
of things I call
breakthrough energy,
because that's the
for-profit sector
that creates all the things
that cause the emission.
So, reducing emissions, they
call mitigation, while helping
to minimize the damage of the
emissions they call adaptation.
And so, that's the part
where the foundation leads,
whereas mitigation, I've got
this breakthrough energy group.
>> David M. Rubenstein: So,
let's talk about what we
can do in our lifetime.
I'm older than you, so I'm not
going to be around probably
as long as you, but I've always
thought that it was unrealistic
that we could change our
habits in terms of energy usage
and carbon emissions in a
short enough period of time
so that I would actually
get the benefit of it.
In other words, if I change my
habits or you change your habits
or anybody changes their
habits, it's our great,
great grandchildren
that might benefit.
We're not really
going to benefit.
Is that true or not?
>> Bill Gates: Well,
the end consumption
that people still want to
eat meat and they still want
to travel and they still want
buildings with cement and steel,
you know, my belief in the book
is that overall we're not going
to change people's behavior, so
we eliminate much of the demand
for those things,
particularly when you look
at developing countries
where they're still building
basic shelter, lights at night,
you know, a nutritious diet
to get rid of malnutrition.
So, the assumption in the book
is that only through innovating
in how we make all those things,
including electricity, food,
and only by changing that so
that they have no
emissions will we be able
to get realistically to zero.
So, in large part,
it's that process
of how electricity gets made
or how your car gets powered
that we have to drive
to zero emission rather
than completely getting rid of
the demand for all those things.
So, if we can electrify fast
enough and make these changes,
we will get emissions down
towards the end of the time
when we're likely to be alive.
But your point that getting
the world to start cooling off,
even in the best case, it's
actually way out there in 2060s,
2070s, that you start to
see that temperature begin
to drop back to where
it belongs.
>> David M. Rubenstein:
So, under the Paris Accord,
which the United States was
in as an original signatory,
then we were out, and
now we're back in,
we are not going
to zero emissions.
We're going to reduce
the emissions
by the year 2030, is that right?
>> Bill Gates: That's right.
The 2030 is an intermediate goal
where the Biden administration
is
of the ambition there quite
dramatically to get 50%
versus the baseline,
but the goal is
by 2050, which is very hard.
The 2030 goal is hard, but
even harder is that 2050 goal
of actually getting
the U.S. to zero.
>> David M. Rubenstein:
But your proposal is
to get the whole world to zero,
and by what time do you
think that's realistic,
if we adopted your proposal and
things that you want us to do?
How soon do could
we really get there?
>> Bill Gates: To get to 2050,
would require us to drive a lot
of innovation so that the
extra cost, being green,
is say 95% lower than
it is today, and so,
a key point I make in
the book is not only
that there's many
sources of emissions
but that the responsibility
of the rich countries,
particularly the United States,
is not only to reduce its
own emissions but to do it
through innovation so that
the cost to other countries,
as these innovations are
made available globally,
that the cost to them,
so a country like India,
who did little to
cause this problem,
because they're emissions
historically have been super
low, that we owe it
to those countries
to have dramatic innovation.
And so that our own cost of
getting to zero is reduced
but also the other countries.
And so, you know, the whole
world is in this together.
The only reason we want the
whole world to get to zero is
that that's what it takes
to stop the temperature
from constantly going up.
It's, you know, we're filling a
bathtub every year we emit CO2,
and we get to temperature
increases
that destroy the ability
to live near the equator
and create tornados and sea
level rise and a variety
of things that even up in
the U.S. will be horrific
over a long period of time.
>> David M. Rubenstein: So,
let's suppose the United States
does everything perfectly,
and they do everything
you recommend,
but other countries do nothing,
am I going to be better off
or worse off if I'm living
in the United States,
because eventually the air and
the climate and the other things
that are coming from the
other parts of the world.
So, does it do any good for one
country or one part of the world
to do it, or does
everybody have to do it
if it's really going
to be an impact?
>> Bill Gates: You have to have
not only the rich countries
but also the middle income
countries participate.
There may be, you know,
the poorest 15% whose emissions
are quite small and may need
to be entirely subsidized to
make the shift, but yes, China,
India, we've all
got to participate,
and that's why this, the
total cost, what you give
up to be green, what I call
the green premium is a measure
of how hard, what we're
asking them to do is.
The ideal is you'd get to a
situation like electric cars.
With electric cars, the
actual cost of an electric car
versus a gasoline car we can
see over the next 10 to 15 years
that actually gets to zero.
And so, when the entire
world has that technology
for cheap electric
cars, fast charging,
long mileage capability,
then it's not a burden
to tell them to shift.
So, to get that green
premium all the way to zero,
which we will in
many categories,
including electric
cars, then we can count
on the collective action
of making that change.
If you have a place like cement
where the green premium
is very high,
where today it's almost
double the price to be green,
unless we innovate, we're not
going to find it very easy.
And so, your point about those
emissions will still be coming
from the other countries, and
since the U.S. is only 15%
of emissions, and these growing
middle income countries are the
majority going forward, yes,
we have to make it cheap enough
for them and find ways
of encouraging them
to solve a global problem.
>> David M. Rubenstein: Let's
talk about electric cars.
Some people have said
electric cars are better
than internal combustion engine
cars, but on the other hand,
some people say you have
to produce electricity
for these cars to be charge.
Where does the electricity
come from?
Isn't that coming from burning
carbon emission kinds of things,
and also, you have precious
metals that have to be mined
that are in the batteries.
So, are your electric cars
as good as people think
or are they better
than what we have?
>> Bill Gates: Well, that
question is a very good question
because you only get the
benefit of an electric car
if you both switch the
passenger cars to be electric
and if you take the electricity
generation system and switch it
over to zero emission,
like solar, wind,
nuclear, a variety of things.
So, it's a two-step process
before you get the benefit.
In terms of the precious
metals, there are plenty of ways
to innovate, you know, either
to up the supply say of lithium
at cheap price or to
avoid the use of cobalt.
So, I don't worry about that.
You know, breakthrough energy,
among others, is investing
in finding more of those
minerals and actually designs
that minimize the
demand for them.
So, that won't be
that much of a limit
to the rapid adoption
of electric cars.
>> David M. Rubenstein: Now,
some people say we can't really
think this is a manmade problem.
Trees emit carbon dioxide.
Cows emit enormous amounts of
methane gas, among other things.
So, if we didn't have carbon at
all on the face of the earth,
in the sense of no coal, no gas,
no oil, and we never used it,
would we not still have some
heating up problem in the earth
or would it be de minimis?
>> Bill Gates: Yeah, in fact,
if you took the amount of CO2
in the atmosphere all
the way down to zero,
this planet would be too
Collingwood to live on, and so,
when we talk about
carbon in the atmosphere,
zero is not the right number,
but neither is 419
parts per million headed
to much higher numbers
because then it gets too hot.
And what's happened is
we've taken all the carbon
that was buried, from trees that
grew, you know, many millions
of years ago, and now,
we're putting that CO2
up into the atmosphere.
So, the rate of CO2 increases
very dramatic, particularly
over the last 50 years, as
we're using so much of coal
and natural gas,
which collectively are
called hydrocarbons.
And that's, you know, 95% is
coming from those hydrocarbons.
The other sources of
emission don't add up to much,
and you know, they're
not the problem,
that's not where we're changing
and creating this forcing
up to the very high temperatures
that causes all these
extinctions and sea level rise
and tornados and those things.
So, we want carbon to
stay down, you know,
well below 500 parts
per million so that even
in the equatorial regions
you can actually go outside.
>> David M. Rubenstein: Now,
before coal was really
discovered and then oil and gas,
people used to warm
themselves with, I guess wood,
to burn wood or things
like that.
So, for thousands of years
of organized history,
people were emitting
carbon in some ways
when they're burning wood
or some things like that,
but it was only really in
the last couple hundred years
when we really began to
use coal, gas, and oil,
that the problem became
much bigger, is that right?
>> Bill Gates: Exactly.
The tree, if you burn a tree,
then if you're not deforesting
the world, then carbon,
that carbon will be
recollected as the tree regrows.
So, it's taking carbon
that's buried way underground
and bringing that
up all of a sudden
that creates this
disequilibrium, and as you say,
that comes from coal,
natural gas, and oil.
>> David M. Rubenstein: So,
let's suppose we did discover
coal, oil, or natural gas,
would civilization
that we now know
and we have many great
things in civilization,
would it be several hundred
years behind where we are now
or would we be more advanced
because we were more creative
in using solar or wind?
>> Bill Gates: We would be
hundreds of years behind
because we've used the
unbelievable energy density
of these hydrocarbons to
create our modern civilization.
You know, gasoline costs
less than bottled water.
It's very, very cheap.
You know, coal, you can
buy for like $4 a ton,
and it's just unfortunate
that there's this side effect
that's built up over time
that is so threatening
as you get
to large numbers of emissions.
But we'll look back
and say, okay,
we bootstrapped civilization
using hydrocarbons,
and that really is why there was
an industrial age and it's why,
you know, we have lights and
electricity and transport,
and we can make materials
like steel and cement.
Energy intensity is the hallmark
of why after 1800 progress went
into a very, very different
rate than all those thousands
of years that came before.
>> David M. Rubenstein: So, let
me ask you about the situation
that exists in I'd say emerging
markets or developing countries.
They would say, well Bill, okay,
I want to support your idea,
and there should be a
reduction in emission,
but why should I do it?
You in the United States,
you've been polluting the
atmosphere for a long time.
You in Europe, you've
been doing it,
why can't I pollute a little bit
and get my civilization further.
So, you guys make the cuts,
and let me keep producing
what I want to produce.
Why is that an unfair argument?
>> Bill Gates: No, it's actually
quite a legitimate argument
that the historical emissions
the U.S. is by far the biggest.
In terms of current
emissions, now China,
which is a fairly wealthy
middle income country,
it's the largest
source of emissions.
And, you know, India will
become as they electrify
and provide basics to all
of their 1.3 billion people,
they'll be a huge emitter.
And so, unless we make
it very cheap to go green
and to some degree for the very
poor countries provide some
subsidies, they will tell us no.
They will say, hey,
we're not going to slow
down building basic shelter.
And so, the current cost
to subsidize them would be
over 5 trillion a year.
That's just not going to happen,
and that's where innovation
comes in to say, okay,
can you reduce that number by
ideally 90% or 95%, you know,
then you get down to a level,
say at 95%, 250 billion a year
where it is possible to
help out the poor countries.
The rich countries could
realistically bear some
of those additional
costs, and that deals
with this justice issue, that we
shouldn't be holding them back
in terms of air conditioning
when you can barely
live near the equator
with the heating caused
by climate change.
>> David M. Rubenstein:
So, why do you think
that there are some people that
resist doing the kinds of things
that you suggest we should do?
Is it because they don't believe
manmade emissions are the
problem or is it because they
don't want the cost involved
or they just don't like the
people who are advocating
for these kind of things?
What do you think is the reason
that you still have a fairly
big resistance to the idea
that climate change is even
a real manmade problem.
>> Bill Gates: Yeah, the
number of people who deny
that phenomenon exist
is going down.
The number of people
who say, gosh,
the other countries won't
go along, so it's hopeless,
you know, they're asking
a legitimate question,
and that's why these
conferences,
including one coming
up in late 2021
in Glasgow will be
important to show
that people are working
together.
We also now have people who
think it's easy to solve,
that is, they haven't looked
at all the sources of emissions
and the scale of
change required, and so,
they're not helping
get the research money
and the innovation agenda
going at full speed.
So, this a complex issue.
You know, the amount of
science you need to know
to yourself have thought through
all the different things,
why the temperature, you
know, changed, you know.
There was a period where it
wasn't going up that much
and then a period where
it was going up faster.
This is tough, and so, a key
reason I wrote the book was
to say to the people who
think it's easy, no it's hard,
and the people who think that
it's impossible to remind them
that innovation in all
these areas is happening.
The only question is it
happening fast enough,
and what kind of
incentives and policies
or behaviors should
individuals, companies,
and governments engage in
to give us the best chance
of avoiding this
climate disaster.
>> David M. Rubenstein:
Speaking of innovations,
it was reported this
week that you
and Warren Buffet are putting
together a nuclear plant,
I think it was in
Wyoming or someplace,
I forget exactly where,
but is that realistic,
because building nuclear power
plants usually takes five, six,
seven years, and a lot of people
are worried about the emissions
from them if something goes
bad, like in Three Mile Island.
What is it that you're
doing with your company
that you've invested in,
I think it's called Terra,
what is that company
doing that is different
than the traditional
nuclear power plants,
and why is that going
to be better
than what we already have?
>> Bill Gates: Well, the
advantage of nuclear is
that it generates energy no
matter what the weather is,
and so, as we move to use
solar and wind for over 80%
of the generation, the idea of
having some generation that even
in tough weather conditions
still is available is
quite valuable.
So, unless you get a miracle
in terms of storing energy,
this constant energy capability
would help you maintain
reliability, which is
very, very important.
You don't want people
to freeze or boil
because the electricity
goes away.
And you know, we've seen periods
of unreliability even
though we're not using
that high a percentage
of renewables yet.
It's still under 10%.
So, the idea that we
should at least try to come
up with a nuclear reactor that
is cheap enough and safe enough
that it can be part
of the solution,
that's something I funded.
As you mentioned, there's
now a site in Wyoming
where this pilot plant, which
is a very new design in terms
of the safety and cost.
We can prove out does it
work as well as it does
in the digital simulation,
and if that goes well,
within five years, then
that would become a choice
for powered generation.
And so, I'm excited that, you
know, we're doing the work,
and you know, if it's ready
in five years, then by 2050,
you can have a lot of
those reactors helping
out because it's
completely green energy,
and we really have
solved the safety problem.
>> David M. Rubenstein: Now, in
your book and in our discussion
so far, you've mentioned
breakthrough energy,
which is a fund that
you created,
and you're now having the
second one, and investing
in new technology
in the energy area,
but that might take a long time
for them to come to fruition.
Have you found any yet
that you think are going
to really make a
big dent, right,
in the near future in emissions?
>> Bill Gates: Yeah,
back in 2015,
the last big climate conference
in Paris, I had been talking
with governments about
increasing their R and D,
doubling their R and D over five
years, and they agreed to do
that if I agreed that we'd
have high-risk funding,
venture-type funding
that was purpose built
for solving climate problems.
And so, all of my
efforts in climate
and break-through energy, part
of that is this Ventures group,
and that's gone very well.
There's over 50 companies now
that Ventures has invested in.
So, far, it's actually
going very well.
I'm sure a lot of
them will fail,
but we've got incredible
batteries.
We've got wild ways
of storing energy
with a big [inaudible] pool
or by just pressurizing
water underground.
It's early days still.
These companies take longer
than software companies,
like a decade, because
they actually have to build
and prove their stuff works
in an economic fashion.
But if you do all
the things possible
to accelerate innovation,
more basic R and D money,
more venture money, and
then these projects,
where you take these
technologies and try
to build them and see how
you can get the cost down,
funding of that I call catalyst,
breakthrough energy catalyst,
that takes the pipeline and
price to drive it at full speed
so that the green premiums
go down as fast as possible,
and that's what can,
if things go well,
enable us to hit this very
ambitious goal of zero by 2050.
>> David M. Rubenstein: So,
let's talk about the
renewables and that possibility.
There's solar.
There's hydro.
There is other kinds
of wind energy.
So, if I was going to be an
investor, and I wanted to guess
where the world was going in
terms of solar, wind, hydro,
other renewables, where
would I put my money?
Where do you think we're
really going to go in terms
of renewables, in terms of the
best opportunity to invest,
because it's going to
have the biggest impact.
>> Bill Gates: Yeah, I've
done an open source project
that simulates the grid of the
future, and so, you can plug
in all the sources of power and
the demand for power and how
that storage and nuclear and
how that's all fitting together
to see the reliability and
the cost, and as you say,
a huge part of that will be
solar, which in the U.S.,
particularly southwest,
works very well.
Wind, both in the middle of the
country and then offshore wind
that still has a little
bit of a premium both
on the west and east coast.
And then, for those tough
periods, either heat waves
or cold snaps, a
combination of storage,
possibly with nuclear playing a
big role there, and we can see,
okay, does it all work?
And you have to do that
for Europe and Asia
to make sure we have this
zero carbon source of energy
that we'll need a lot more
of because we won't be
using gasoline or coal
or natural gas say to heat
houses with natural gas.
We'll be using electricity
instead.
So, it's a big challenge,
but the utilities that step
up are going to be selling
over twice as much electricity,
and the renewable build rates
will be absolutely gigantic.
You know, we have to actually go
at four times the current rate.
So, although we're always
impressed that, hey,
that rate is built up, we're
not near where we need to get
to to finish this
project in 30 years.
>> David M. Rubenstein: So,
Bill, you have become an expert
in explaining complicated
scientific things to people
that might not be as
scientifically oriented
as you are, particularly
government leaders.
So, when you go in and try
to explain the pandemic
and related issues like
that to government leaders,
and you try to explain
this issue, climate change,
where do the eyes
glaze over the most?
Do they understand the
science less in the case
of the pandemic, or do they
understand the science less
in the case of the energy?
>> I'd say climate is
harder because areas
like how we make cement
or how we make steel,
and we just take it for granted.
It's gotten so good and
so cheap it's kind of out
of sight, out of mind.
With the pandemic, you know,
sadly, you have, you know,
a death rate every day, whereas
with climate, there are death,
in fact, way more deaths
than in this pandemic,
but they're out there, you know,
30 or 40 years hence, and yet,
you have to take action
now to avoid that.
There's no single innovation
like the incredible COVID
vaccines that will bring,
you know, climate to an end.
And so, I think it has reminded
people that we need government
to step up and, you
know, protect citizens
from really bad things.
In the case of climate, although
there's some uncertainty,
these bad things are
pretty well known.
It's not as uncertain as the
chance of a pandemic coming,
which sadly we were
not prepared for that,
and it's cost us trillions
of dollars and so many deaths
and educational deficits.
You know, it's been a case where
government, most governments,
including the U.S. was
absolutely not ready.
And so, you know, hopefully
say, well, I want government
to do better on climate, but it
requires more political backing.
You know, all the young
people, even both parties,
will need to make sure
this remains a priority
over the next 30 years,
or we won't get there.
>> David M. Rubenstein:
Now, President Obama put us
into the Paris Accord,
and then, President Trump,
technically he pulled
us out, but I don't know
if we actually technically
got out,
because I think it takes
three years to get out
or something like that.
I don't know if we
actually ever got out.
But when you talk to
leader around the world now
under President Biden's
leadership, you're not,
you know, you're not part
of his administration,
but do they say we don't trust
that you're going to not get
out of it in the future,
so we're not sure the United
States is that reliable,
or do they say, thank
God you're back in?
What's their reaction to
how we've handled this?
>> Bill Gates: Well,
they're very thankful
that the U.S. is a
participant now in solving one
of the biggest problems
that will cause, you know,
unbelievable suffering
and, you know,
just totally mass
migration greater
than anything ever
seen in history.
They, of course, worry that,
you know, if there isn't kind
of a bipartisan consensus,
will the U.S. have kind
of a stop-and-go relationship to
this problem, which, you know,
if we had 200 years, you
could probably withstand that.
But since we only have 30 years,
that's got to be a
concern for them.
But, you know, in the
meantime, the fact that the R
and D investment is going up.
The incentives are going up.
Some ambitious goals for 2030
and 2035 have been stated.
The rest of the world
is very enthused
because there's no way we
avoid a climate disaster
without the U.S. taking a
leadership role, particularly
in its power of innovation.
>> David M. Rubenstein: So,
let's suppose I read your book,
and I say, okay, I'm now
convinced I should do something
about it.
What is the average
person supposed to do?
The average person
probably isn't Bill Gates,
doesn't have your
access and influence.
The average person reads it,
what do you want the
average person to do?
>> Bill Gates: Yeah, I'd
start out with saying
that everyone has a political
voice, and particularly
for young people,
maintaining this is a priority.
Over these decades to come,
that is critically important.
Many people are employees,
and so,
making sure your company is
playing a leadership role,
people are consumers, and
so, when you buy a car,
if you can afford an
electric car, when you want,
if you want to eat ground
beef, using as much of things
like Beyond Meat or Impossible
or others that are coming along,
so that you have no
greenhouse footprint there,
for many of the products you
buy, you'll have a choice
of buying something that is
nonpolluting versus something
that is, and that really,
that consumer demand
showing even a willingness
to pay a little bit extra
can make a absolutely
critical difference.
>> David M. Rubenstein: Suppose
I say, look, I admit emissions
in the atmosphere, I can't
do anything about it,
my business does that.
I'll plant some trees somewhere,
is that a good thing to do?
Because some people think
if you plant enough trees
you can absolve yourself
from any problem.
Is that really true or not?
>> Bill Gates: Well, the basic
idea of being willing to pay
for offsets is fantastic,
and that's just developing,
and it's going to
be super important.
Sadly, it looks like in most
cases the trees either would
have grown or they'll get
diseased or burned down, and so,
the amount that just brute force
tree planting can help here is
pretty small, and so
the sophistication
of what we certify as real
offsets, that has gone
from being very limited to
allowing a lot of things
that have zero impact, now we're
making that more sophisticated,
and so, we'll be
able to say, okay,
if you're funding a new green
hydrogen project, you know,
that does have a big impact.
But putting trees in most
locations sadly won't create a
benefit, because you'd have
to make sure those trees
never would have been there
in the first place, and that
you're funding 10,000 years
of replanting every
time there's a problem.
>> David M. Rubenstein: So, from
being a young man, you were able
to code and write code.
I don't know how to do that,
but I assume it's complicated
and I don't think I'm going
to learn, but how hard is it
to write code compared
to writing a book?
I mean which is more
frustrating,
writing code or writing a book?
And how long did it take
you to work on this book?
There's a lot of research
in this book, and you know,
I'm just curious how long
it too you to do this.
>> Bill Gates: Well, I
decided to be very involved
in climate back in 2005, and
so, I've done learning sessions,
about five or six a year, and
done a lot of site visits.
So, I had about 15
years of work.
I gave a TED talk actually,
my 2000 TED talk was warning
about climate change
and very consistent
with what is in the book.
My 2015 pandemic TED talk is way
more famous, because of course
that prediction sadly came true.
And so, because I was drawing
on the fact experts have been
so wonderful at spending
time with me, it only took
about six months, and then, I
had a cowriter, Josh Daniel,
who does a fantastic job,
we had to change it somewhat
because originally
we were going to come
out before the 2020 election,
and we changed our mind, and so,
we did about a 15%
revision and then put it
out by the end of the year.
And then we could talk about
the fact Biden was elected
and talked about this
big upcoming meeting.
But it wasn't that hard but only
because I'd put so much effort
into immersing myself
in climate issues.
>> David M. Rubenstein:
Final question, Bill.
And that's this.
When you made your
prediction about the pandemic,
people didn't take
you as seriously
as probably they should, and
when you made your prediction
about the other problems
that you mentioned earlier,
people didn't take you
as seriously perhaps,
what are you going to make
your next TED talk about,
so we should know what
the next problem is.
Is it, what's coming next
are you going to talk
about that we have
to worry about?
>> Bill Gates: Well, I think
if we do the right things
on climate and we
do the right things
to avoid the next
pandemic, you know,
those are two areas I
understand, and you know,
I think now there's more support
for putting the resources
in there.
Avoiding the next pandemic
includes not just a naturally
caused pandemic but
also bioterrorism
or somebody would intentionally
use the advanced tools
of biology to create a pathogen.
That's a very scary one, and
I, you know, sadly we do need
to even prepare for that.
If I can help the world be ready
for climate and various kinds
of pandemics, I will have felt
like they've listened to me more
than they, you know, probably do
in general, so that, you know,
that's my big focus is
speaking out on those two areas.
Where I really am optimistic
that if we do the right things,
we can avoid the problem.
>> David M. Rubenstein: I
hope you'll focus as well
on aging baby boomers
like me, what we can do
to keep our brain
and body alive.
If you could focus on that,
I would be very appreciative.
>> Bill Gates: Well, I have
to say, even though I'm not,
there's a lot of the
wealthy tech guys
who fund that longevity work.
I am doing some on
Alzheimer's, but yeah, I agree,
innovation can help
in almost every way.
>> David M. Rubenstein:
Bill, thank you very much.
I enjoyed reading How to
Avoid a Climate Disaster,
and thanks very much
for being with us today.
>> Bill Gates: Great
to talk to you.
>> LeVar Burton: We hope you've
enjoyed this conversation,
and now, we'd like
you to hear more
from the Library's own
experts on this topic.
>> John Hessler: Welcome
to the Library of Congress.
My name is John Hessler, and
I am the curator of the Jay I.
Kislak Collection of the
Archeology and History
of the Early Americans.
I am joining you today from
one of the beautiful rooms
in the Thomas Jefferson
building.
The Kislak Collection
contains hundreds
of archeological objects, rare
books, and manuscripts relating
to the history of the Americas
from pre-Columbian times
until the middle of the
19th Century and is housed
in the Rare Book and Special
Collections in the Geography
and Map Division
here at the Library.
As Bill Gates and David
Rubenstein discussed
in their interview,
climate is a complex thing.
Both from a political and
scientific perspective,
there are few issues that
have been discussed as much
in the last few decades.
From the scientific
point of view,
predicting it today
requires the solution
of complex mathematical
equations and employs some
of the fastest computers
on the planet.
Visualizing and trying to
understand climate has,
however, always been an issue.
Few things have been more
important to human beings
as the weather, as it affects
almost everything we do,
from growing our food
to what clothes we wear.
Historically, there
have been many attempts
to understand the weather
and to visualize the climate,
and it was a subject that
fascinated and obsessed some
of the founding fathers
of the United States.
All of you, of course,
know the name Ben Franklin
and his interest
in the sciences.
Here, we see a map from
1769, created by Franklin,
which is the first to
show the Gulf Stream.
Franklin thought of it as a
river in the ocean and theorized
that the Gulf Stream influences
the climate of the east coast
of North America from Florida to
Newfoundland and the west coast
of Europe as it brings
warm water
in to the northern
Atlantic from the south.
Our second piece is a copy of
the Virginia Almanac from 1762,
which as most almanacs do,
tries to give some
insight into the weather.
This particular copy from the
Kislak Collection is however
unique in that George Washington
annotated it and used it
as a farming and weather diary.
In it he made notes of
temperature, of rain,
and of snow and wondered why
the reality of the weather was
so different from
[inaudible] expectations.
These are just two
of the historically significant
artifacts at the Library
of Congress that show the long
history of our trying to record
and to understand
the vast complexity
of the Earth's climate, both of
which, along with many others,
are available on the
Library's website.
[ Music ]