This is truly disconcerting. The fact that someone like Bill Gates writes (and presumably believes) something like this is of real concern and an indicator of just how far askew this whole business of climate change has gone. Everything he proposes is pointless.

I've written about this before:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19732189

Here's my challenge for anyone to undertake. I don't care how much or how little you know about the domain. See if you can refute this and then we can have a conversation. If you know basic college Physics even better.

Step 1:

Take a look at this graph. It represents ice core atmospheric composition data for the last 800,000 years. Yes, it is VERY accurate information.

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical...

Step 2:

Measure the slope of the rise from minima to maxima. Get a sense of what you might call the average rate of change over this 800,000 year period.

My numbers are, again, roughly:

Increase of 100 ppm atmospheric CO2, about 25,000 years.

Decrease of 100 ppm atmospheric CO2, about 50,000 years.

Step 3:

Understand the crucial point (in caps for emphasis only, not shouting):

THE ABOVE MEANS THAT IF HUMANITY DID NOT EXIST IT WOULD TAKE THE PLANET ABOUT 50,000 YEARS TO REDUCE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 BY 100 PPM.

Think about that for a moment.

Step 4:

Now explain how installing bunches of solar panels, wind farms and converting the entire transportation infrastructure to use these energy sources will REVERSE climate change.

Step 5:

Really think about the above. Hopefully you've realized the absolute futility of these proposals. I would call them "demented" but the more accurate term is "political". They are not rooted in any kind reasonable scientific basis.

Realize that if humanity evaporated from this planet next Monday it would take around 50,000 years for a 100 ppm drop in CO2. IF HUMANITY EVAPORATED FROM THIS PLANET. Then answer this:

How, pray tell, is anything less than us leaving this planet going to deliver results any faster than about 100 ppm in 50,000 years?

Step 6:

This is for extra credit.

Some out there are talking about reversing climate change (which, for the most part is code for atmospheric CO2 accumulation) in 50 years.

Great. For 100 points: Explain how we are going to achieve a 1000x improvement of the natural rate of change without destroying the planet in the process. You see, anything we do will require energy and resources. And nothing is 100% efficient. Which means the byproducts of this massive planetary-scale undertaking is far more likely to cause more damage than to fix anything at all. You don't speed-up a planetary scale process a thousand-fold without serious --unknown-- consequences.

Again, any time you find yourself saying "but, but, but, solar and wind power are clean and renewable" remind yourself that it would take 50,000 years for a 100 ppm reduction if we left earth with all of our toys in tow. That is reality.

Now what? No clean energy then?

No, of course not. But not for these fake reasons. Here's a research paper you can read that will set you straight as far as the relationship between renewable energy sources and climate change. The conclusion, paraphrasing, is: Even if we deployed the most optimal forms of all renewable energy sources globally, atmospheric CO2 concentration would continue to increase exponentially.

https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-...

Pour that into your cup, sip on it for a while and then go re-read the Gates memo.

We want clean and renewable energy for other reason. It will make human life better. We want nuclear also, which is FAR, FAR better than the other sources. What we do not want to do is continue the lie that this will "save the planet". It will not. It will make things better but the solution to atmospheric CO2 accumulation will require an approach and technology that we have yet to imagine.