There are situations in which our intuition far anticipates reason — we feel well before we are able to justify the emotion.
It was my experience when, when reading (“Three Hard Truths about Climate”), the song “Les Bourgeois”, by .
Brel exuded, in each song and in his intense interpretations, the integrity of his character and his conflicts.
He sang the passionate exaltation of youth and the mature melancholy in the face of human hypocrisy.
He is known among us mainly for the beautiful “Ne Me Quitte Pas”, but his work is much broader and more fascinating.
It mirrors, with equal intensity and poetry, the wear and tear of romantic relationships in “Les Vieux Amants”, (where he ironizes: “It took talent to grow old without becoming adults”), the rawness and hopelessness of the sailors’ lives in “Amsterdam”, or the farewell to a friend ruined by life in “Jef”.
In the song that came to mind, “Les Burgeois” —which seems more appropriately translated as “The good citizens”, not simply “The bourgeois”—, the young singer and two friends mock the notaries and judges who frequent a tavern, singing: “Good men are like pigs, the older they are, the more foolish they become.” At the end of the song, the singer and his friends, now notaries, complain to a police officer about the kids who repeat the same old provocation to them.
Brel portrays the inevitable conformity of the time: idealism dies, fear grows and convenience takes the place of courage.
At first glance, nothing would seem to link this song to Gates’ letter.
The philanthropist argues that human life —health, well-being, development— must be the center of the strategy to combat .
It recommends that we accept the fact that the global temperature will rise by 2ºC to 3ºC this century and that we invest in adapting to this new reality.
Following the same logic, he believes that the increase in energy use should not be combated, as it is correlated with economic development and improved living conditions.
He advocates that we leave the task of reducing (GHG) emissions to technological innovation. It then proceeds to analyze what has been done in the electricity, industry, agriculture, transport and housing sectors, to conclude by recommending that investment be made to make clean solutions more competitive, especially where the challenge is even greater.
What could be wrong with statements of such common sense and reasonableness? Shouldn’t we seek better living conditions for everyone and adapt to inevitable changes?
After reflecting, I realized that the deep disappointment that the text causes me does not come from its recommendations, but from its omissions.
Gates ignores the evident conflict situation surrounding the climate issue — the conflict between oil-producing countries and the fossil fuel sector, on the one hand, and the science that unequivocally attributes global warming to GHG emissions, on the other. When advocating that resources be concentrated on finding solutions to health and poverty, at no point does he propose that, for this purpose, the US$7 trillion that, according to the IMF, is spent annually on global subsidies for fossil fuels be used (2022 data).
Ignoring this essential confrontation, he places the conflict where it is least found: in the competition between the effort to reduce emissions and the investment in reducing inequalities and improving living conditions.
I have no doubts about the central role of overcoming the climate challenge. The brutal cost reduction of renewable energy, for example, clearly points in this direction. But resistance will cost humanity many years — and many lives — if it is not combated through the strengthening of global governance, capable of discouraging emissions — for example, through carbon markets.
The omission of the confrontation is especially serious when the letter is published on the eve of , the main forum in which global leaders committed to the climate try to improve the mechanisms that would accelerate the replacement of fossil fuels.
We know that the fossil industry’s strategy is precisely to sabotage any regulatory effort: sending hundreds of lobbyists to COPs, supporting the election of leaders committed to the sector, reversing restrictive legislation on emissions. Publishing the letter at this time perfectly serves these purposes.
It is also shocking that, in the face of a COP held in the forest, the problem of —responsible for around 10% of global emissions— is simply ignored.
We can assume that deforestation is included — inaccurately, no doubt — in the item “agriculture” (19% of emissions). But even that is uncertain, as Gates only focuses on fertilizers and livestock as causes of agricultural emissions. Furthermore, it makes no reference to nature-based solutions — such as preservation and regeneration — as available technologies for reducing emissions.
Gates’ letter sounds, to my ears, like an invitation to inaction — for all of us who are not directly linked to technological development.
The same call for inaction that was heard in Chamberlain’s pacifist speech in 1938, as he fumed over German rearmament.
(And here I choose the mildest comparison: I could have cited him, who would certainly claim to have thought of the well-being of the French people when signing the Vichy peace.)
Conflict should not be sought, but ignoring it only serves the interests of the aggressor.
The repercussion of the letter was immediate — and revealing. The American president to:
“We just won the war against the climate change hoax. He finally admitted that he was completely wrong on this issue. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. Maga!!!”
In my opinion — and unfortunately —, courage is precisely the missing element when a “good citizen”, admirable for his intelligence, creativity, philanthropic activity and productivity, decides to capitulate in the face of pressures that, we recognize, are even directed at his business interests.
As Brel would say, with the determination of someone who refuses to grow old in peace, “The older you are, the more foolish you are.”
