51吃瓜

In late October, Hurricane Melissa (that should have been called 鈥淕odzilla鈥�) battered western Jamaica with 185-mile-an-hour winds. It the roofs of buildings about like splintering javelins, demolished municipal buildings and hospitals, snapped telephone poles like matchsticks, flattened crops and dumped torrential floodwaters everywhere, $8 billion in damage.

That Category 5 storm鈥檚 unprecedented ferocity was driven by an overheated Caribbean Sea, produced by 275 years of industrial civilization that has spewed obscene amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.

The same week that UN officials of an 鈥渁pocalypse鈥� in Jamaica, American billionaire Bill Gates a certain unease about officials and scientists concerned with climate change who, he thought, were being hysterical. He urged them to chill the hell out. It was an arrogant and manipulative oracle, uttered with all the privilege of the world鈥檚 man. A symbol of monopoly capitalism, his individual net worth rivals the annual gross domestic product of the Dominican Republic. And when he responded to Hurricane Melissa, he did so (not surprisingly, I suppose) in the narrow sectional interests of the world鈥檚 wealthiest class in Silicon Valley.

鈥淢y house is a rubbish heap鈥�

Gates the view that climate change 鈥渨ill decimate civilization,鈥� insisting instead that it 鈥渨ill not lead to humanity鈥檚 demise.鈥� Of course, no one in the scientific community had argued that climate change would actually wipe out humankind, so he is indeed (and all too conveniently) attacking a straw man.

That he resorted to a description of such fallacious relevance shows how intent he is on engaging in a bad-faith argument. And that, in turn, raises the question of his motivation. After all, the possible decimation of civilization, as did indeed occur in parts of Jamaica recently, is quite different from the full-scale extinction of the human species, and it certainly raises questions of equity.

The nearly half a million Jamaicans who will be without electricity for weeks and who may face severe food shortages because of crop damage will, of course, not be enjoying much in the way of 鈥渃ivilization鈥� in the wake of Melissa. As Sherlette Wheelan of that island鈥檚 Westmoreland Parish , 鈥淢y house is like a rubbish heap, completely gone. If it wasn鈥檛 for the shelter manager, I don鈥檛 know what I would鈥檝e done. She found space for me and others, even though her own roof was gone.鈥�

And imagine this: the hurricanes of the future world we鈥檙e now by burning such quantities of fossil fuels, in which temperatures could rise by a disastrous 3掳 C, are likely to be so gargantuan as to make our present behemoths look sickly. Melissa was already a third more powerful than it would have been without climate breakdown. Heat up the Caribbean Sea even more, and the power of storm winds won鈥檛 increase on a gentle slope but exponentially.

Scientists are already that we need a new Category 6 classification for such hurricanes, since our present five categories are inadequate, given their increasing power. Remember, at present, with Melissas already appearing, we have only a global 1.3掳 C increase in temperature over the preindustrial norm. At issue is the quality of life and the degree of civilization that will be possible in a world where the temperature increase could be at least double that.

The demand for data centers cannot be met sustainably

A decade ago, many of the companies in Silicon Valley seemed willing to take on the role of climate champions. Microsoft, where Gates made his career, to be carbon negative by 2030. Jeff Bezos鈥檚 has already put more than 30,000 electric vehicles on the road and has pledged to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2040.

In general, you would think that Silicon Valley would be pro-science and hence willing to combat the use of fossil fuels and the worsening of climate change. After all, the industry depends on basic scientific research, much of it produced by government-funded scientists.

As it turns out, though, the high-tech sector that has produced so many billionaires is instead simply pro-billionaire. This year, we were treated to the spectacle of , while still working with US President Donald Trump, 10% to 15% of all government scientists under the rubric of 鈥渢he Department of Government Efficiency,鈥� an act that, in the long run, could also help destroy American scientific and technological superiority.

Climate scientists were especially . The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency is now so understaffed that the carnage of Hurricane Melissa had to be monitored by

The high-tech world鈥檚 abrupt turn to a rabid anti-science stance is likely the result of the emergence of large language models (also known as 鈥渁rtificial intelligence鈥� or AI) and a consequent new romance with the burning of fossil fuels. This development made Nvidia, which produces the graphics-processing units that run much of AI, the first company. That AI has not yet proven able to increase productivity or produce any added value has not stopped the hype around it from driving the biggest securities bubble since the late 1990s.

The AI phenomenon may functionally print money for tech billionaires, at least for the time being, but it comes with a gargantuan environmental cost. Its data centers are water and energy hogs and are poised to use ever more fossil fuels and so increase global carbon emissions significantly.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers that 鈥渂y 2026, the electricity consumption of data centers is expected to approach 1,050 terawatt-hours,鈥� rivaling that of the energy consumption of whole countries like Japan or Russia. By 2030, it鈥檚 estimated that at least a tenth of electricity demand is likely to be by new data centers.

MIT鈥檚 Noman Bashir ominously, 鈥淭he demand for new data centers cannot be met in a sustainable way. The pace at which companies are building new data centers means the bulk of the electricity to power them must come from fossil fuel-based power plants.鈥�

Bashir鈥檚 analysis provides us with the smoking gun for solving the mystery of why the high-tech sector is now trying to kill climate science. Suddenly, Silicon Valley has a monetary reason for wanting to slow down the global movement to reduce the use of fossil fuels (no matter the cost of heating this planet to the boiling point), allying itself with Big Oil in that regard. Scientists Michael E. Mann and Peter Hotez have analyzed this sort of billionaire-driven anti-intellectualism in their seminal new book .

Turbocharging the climate

One of Gates鈥檚 half-truths is that there is good news about our climate progress, and so no grounds for doomsaying. It certainly is true that we now have the levers to limit climate damage. That, however, doesn鈥檛 change our need to jolt the world aggressively with those very levers.

The United Nations has recently that we are indeed on a path to limit (if, under the circumstances, that鈥檚 even an adequate word for it) global heating to 2.8掳 C over the preindustrial average, if the countries of the world were to continue with their current policies, which reflect, however modestly, the global consensus that grew out of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. Before that milestone, the world was marching toward an increase of 3.5潞 C or more in the average surface temperature of the globe by 2100.

The reduction in that projection, achieved over a decade, certainly represents genuine progress and should be celebrated, but the one thing it should not be used for (as Gates indeed does) is as an excuse for now slacking off.

The world鈥檚 peoples could shave another significant half a degree off that number if they simply met their Paris Agreement Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs. But even if they were indeed to be faithful to their promises, we鈥檙e being taken inexorably toward at least a 2.3潞 C global heat increase and, to put that in perspective, climate scientists worry that anything above 1.5潞 C could ensure that the world鈥檚 climate will become devastatingly more chaotic. Imagine repeated Hurricane Melissas, far more turbocharged and striking not just islands in the Caribbean but, say, the US Atlantic coast.

Just as we can鈥檛 afford to give in to a sense of doom, we can鈥檛 afford to be Pollyannas either. The news already isn鈥檛 good, and we in the United States in the age of Donald Trump are now facing ever stronger headwinds against climate action. His Republican Party has, of course, enacted wide-ranging pro-carbon policies that will take effect next year and will also take pressure off China and the European Union to accelerate their paths to end the use of fossil fuels. Nor is it likely that the UN projections have truly reckoned with the coming proliferation of dirty data centers globally.

Worse yet, even before that hits, the world hasn鈥檛 found a way to get on a trajectory that is likely to truly decrease carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions substantially. In fact, the International Energy Agency has that 鈥渢otal energy-related CO2 emissions increased by 0.8% in 2024, hitting an all-time high of 37.8 Gt [gigatons] CO2.鈥� In other words, we鈥檙e still putting more CO2 into the atmosphere in each succeeding year. It鈥檚 only the rate of increase that has slowed somewhat.

And that鈥檚 not the end of the bad news either. The 2.8掳 C (5掳 F) increase toward which we鈥檙e still headed poses tremendous dangers. The numbers may not sound that dauntingly large, but remember, we鈥檙e talking about a global average of surface temperatures. If the average temperature goes up 5潞 F, that increase could translate into double-digit rises in places like Miami, Florida and Basra, Iraq. And scientists now believe that, if cities with humidity levels of 80% experience a temperature of 122潞 F, that combination could be to us humans.

Scientists have a formula for combining humidity and temperature, yielding what they call a 鈥渨et bulb鈥� temperature. We cool off by sweating and letting the moisture evaporate from our skin, but that kind of heat and humidity would prevent such a cooling process from kicking in, which could mean that we humans would essentially be cooked to death.

And the danger won鈥檛 only be in places like the Gulf of Mexico and similar regions. As the National Air and Space Association (NASA) , 鈥淲ithin 50 years, Midwestern states like Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa will likely hit the critical wet-bulb temperature limit.鈥� In short, significant parts of this planet could be turned into what might be thought of as the Hot Tub of Death. And with that comes, of course, the possibility of now almost inconceivable mega-storms, droughts, wildfires and sea-level rise.

It鈥檚 already that, by 2050, only 25 years from now, 200 million people annually will need humanitarian assistance to deal with an increasingly raging climate. That would be a billion people every decade.

Davy Jones鈥� locker

In a sense, we鈥檝e lucked out so far because until now, so much carbon dioxide has been by the oceans and other carbon sinks on this planet. On the old, cold Earth of preindustrial times, half of the carbon dioxide produced went into the oceans or was absorbed on land by rainforests, chemical weathering or rock formations. But the absorptive capacity of the oceans is now decreasing, which means that, if humanity continues to burn staggering quantities of fossil fuels and emit staggering amounts of CO2, we鈥檒l overtax the capacity of the planet鈥檚 major carbon sink, and ever more new carbon dioxide could then stay in the atmosphere, heating the globe for thousands of years.

The oceans absorb carbon dioxide in more than one way. Carbon dioxide mixes with cold sea water to form carbonic acid, which then splits into hydrogen and bicarbonate ions, and the bicarbonate tends to stay in the water. More hydrogen, however, makes the oceans more , which is not good for the on which so many of us depend for food.

Some carbon is also used up by phytoplankton for photosynthesis, turning it into organic matter that is then eaten by other sea creatures, and which also ultimately sinks to the ocean floor. But note that the oceans simply can鈥檛 take in infinite amounts of carbon dioxide. And if the increasing acidity of the ocean or its rising surface heat kills off a lot of phytoplankton, then their role in absorbing carbon will decline, and even more CO2 will stay in the atmosphere.

The world鈥檚 oceans still absorb some 90% of global heating, the surfaces of which are experiencing rapidly rising temperatures 鈥� and the hotter their surfaces get, the less carbon they can bury in Davy Jones鈥� locker because the water beneath them is growing ever .

The blue screen of death

Billionaire Bill Gates carps that a 鈥渄oomsday outlook鈥� is causing climate activists to 鈥渇ocus too much on near-term emissions goals.鈥� Well, he鈥檚 wrong. The focus on near-term emissions goals comes from science. Gates doesn鈥檛 even mention the phrase 鈥渃arbon budget鈥� in his blog entry, which is telling.

After all, we are definitely in a race against time 鈥� and there鈥檚 no certainty that we鈥檒l win. There is only so much carbon dioxide we can put into the atmosphere if we want to keep the increase in temperature under 1.5潞 C. And more than that is likely to cause weird, unexpected and distinctly unpleasant changes in the world鈥檚 climate system.

Unfortunately, as of 2025, we can only put 130 billion more tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and still meet that goal. At our current rate of emissions, we would that budget in 鈥� can you believe it? 鈥� just three years. What if we want to hold the line at 1.7潞 C? That budget would be exceeded in only nine years. So, the urgency climate activists feel in limiting short-term emissions derives from a knowledge that we鈥檙e rapidly depleting our carbon budget.

Most estimates are that, at current rates of emissions, we鈥檒l use up the carbon budget for limiting warming to 2潞 C by 2050. Moreover, we will start losing a friend we had in that endeavor. The Earth鈥檚 biggest carbon sink, the oceans, will gradually being able to take up CO2 in the same quantities.

If cutting our use of fossil fuels means slowing (or even stopping) the rollout of AI data centers, inconveniencing Microsoft, Amazon, Google and the rest of the crew, well, too bad. AI has its uses, but we clearly don鈥檛 need so much more of it desperately enough to thoroughly wreck our planet.

For a couple of decades, when I used a computer with Bill Gates鈥檚 Microsoft operating system, I would occasionally lose a day鈥檚 work because it abruptly crashed (through no fault of my own). We used to call that malfunction 鈥渢he blue screen of death.鈥� We don鈥檛 need the same thing to happen to the planet鈥檚 climate. As climate scientist Michael E. Mann has , once you鈥檝e crashed this planet, unlike a computer, you won鈥檛 be able to reboot it.

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.