Gates is one of the best placed people to claim that the advantages of meeting people in person &c in disbursing his wealth (rather than just ‘giv[ing] talks’) outweigh the emissions. There’re obviously diminishing returns (do COP delegations need to be so large?) but it would be surprising if the optimum were zero flights.
He also backs a number of highly visible climate initiatives targeted at the public - with money from his own foundation as well as his presence at speaking engagements. How much more effective would they be if he were more willing to eat his own cooking?
> How much more effective would they be if he were more willing to eat his own cooking?
Zero percent. Folks who scream about the hypocrisy of it would not change anything, those who don't care will continue to not care. It would result in some media fluff pieces and that's about it. Sort of like Jimmy Carter living frugally and avoiding conflicts of interest - neat to read about, people might like him more, but it didn't change a damn thing in the larger picture.
A single person no matter how rich or wasteful changing their consumptive behavior simply doesn't matter. It's a systems problem. Putting resources towards changing the system is what matters - not any individual sacrifice.
I learned this lesson the extremely hard way growing up in basic enforced poverty for environment reasons. It was a sacrifice only my family saw, no one else gave any shits other than lip service. It just scales higher when uber-rich. No one changed their behavior after talking to us and seeing how we also walked the walk. We just got some nice platitudes sent our way while they enjoyed far more luxurious lives and laughed at us in private.
Recent world-wide political events should also make it crystal clear "society" cares literally nothing about hypocrisy. It's only used as something to screech about when you disagree with whomever is engaging in it.
