The post Bill Gates, Chris Wright, And Donald Trump appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at a House Republicans Conference. Getty Images Bill Gates is worth $115 billion, made by founding and building Microsoft, one of the most successful companies in the world (net worth almost $4 trillion). He has been for many years a strong advocate for climate change. But Gates has softened his position. He now says the world needs to shift focus to improving lives by, for example, reducing poverty, improving health, and boosting agriculture. In a recent memo, he says its “time to put human welfare at the center of our climate strategies.” Gates has earned the right to make statements like this, as the Gates Foundation has worked hard over the years and poured in lots of money to improve health and development in poor countries. A prime example is reducing malaria in countries in central Africa, and saving over 12 million lives since 2000. Gates is veering toward adaptation. Bill Gates’ New Perspective. Gates wrote a book in 2021 called How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. In 2021, he didn’t mince words. “If nothing else changes, the world will keep producing greenhouse gases, climate change will keep getting worse, and the impact on humans will in all likelihood be catastrophic.” His cry was for the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), and to do it quickly. Back then Gates was strong on mitigation. But Gates also said the world could not decarbonize without innovation in low-carbon energy, and his book lists 19 separate sources that includes nuclear fusion, fission, and geothermal energies. Under fission, Gates asterisks Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). The list in the book is comprehensive, and many of these items were heavily promoted by President Biden in 2021 and 2022, to incentivize joint projects with U.S. industry.… The post Bill Gates, Chris Wright, And Donald Trump appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at a House Republicans Conference. Getty Images Bill Gates is worth $115 billion, made by founding and building Microsoft, one of the most successful companies in the world (net worth almost $4 trillion). He has been for many years a strong advocate for climate change. But Gates has softened his position. He now says the world needs to shift focus to improving lives by, for example, reducing poverty, improving health, and boosting agriculture. In a recent memo, he says its “time to put human welfare at the center of our climate strategies.” Gates has earned the right to make statements like this, as the Gates Foundation has worked hard over the years and poured in lots of money to improve health and development in poor countries. A prime example is reducing malaria in countries in central Africa, and saving over 12 million lives since 2000. Gates is veering toward adaptation. Bill Gates’ New Perspective. Gates wrote a book in 2021 called How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. In 2021, he didn’t mince words. “If nothing else changes, the world will keep producing greenhouse gases, climate change will keep getting worse, and the impact on humans will in all likelihood be catastrophic.” His cry was for the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), and to do it quickly. Back then Gates was strong on mitigation. But Gates also said the world could not decarbonize without innovation in low-carbon energy, and his book lists 19 separate sources that includes nuclear fusion, fission, and geothermal energies. Under fission, Gates asterisks Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). The list in the book is comprehensive, and many of these items were heavily promoted by President Biden in 2021 and 2022, to incentivize joint projects with U.S. industry.…

Bill Gates, Chris Wright, And Donald Trump

2025/11/05 10:52

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at a House Republicans Conference.

Getty Images

Bill Gates is worth $115 billion, made by founding and building Microsoft, one of the most successful companies in the world (net worth almost $4 trillion). He has been for many years a strong advocate for climate change. But Gates has softened his position. He now says the world needs to shift focus to improving lives by, for example, reducing poverty, improving health, and boosting agriculture. In a recent memo, he says its “time to put human welfare at the center of our climate strategies.” Gates has earned the right to make statements like this, as the Gates Foundation has worked hard over the years and poured in lots of money to improve health and development in poor countries. A prime example is reducing malaria in countries in central Africa, and saving over 12 million lives since 2000. Gates is veering toward adaptation.

Bill Gates’ New Perspective.

Gates wrote a book in 2021 called How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. In 2021, he didn’t mince words. “If nothing else changes, the world will keep producing greenhouse gases, climate change will keep getting worse, and the impact on humans will in all likelihood be catastrophic.” His cry was for the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), and to do it quickly. Back then Gates was strong on mitigation.

But Gates also said the world could not decarbonize without innovation in low-carbon energy, and his book lists 19 separate sources that includes nuclear fusion, fission, and geothermal energies. Under fission, Gates asterisks Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). The list in the book is comprehensive, and many of these items were heavily promoted by President Biden in 2021 and 2022, to incentivize joint projects with U.S. industry.

Bill Gates, Founder of Breakthrough Energy.

Getty Images for The New York Times

So what changed? Gates admitted that in his book he wrote five chapters on mitigation, but only one chapter on adaptation, and he wished he had discussed this more. In a piece Gates wrote in 2021, he said climate change affects more the world’s poorest people, and the biggest risk are populations near the equator. A large fraction of these people work in agriculture. An example is a farmer whose crops get wiped out every four years, due to climate change, instead of every ten years as it was before. This is more serious for a family living on the financial edge. Gates says in sub-Saharan Africa and even South Asia vast areas of farmland may move toward drought conditions.

Another impact is the health of a poor family. If money in the bank is reduced due to climate change, there is less to pay for medical treatments. The world needs to learn to adapt to climate change and the risks of agricultural, financial, and health failures amongst the poorest.

But Gates’ vision to address climate change is still very much alive—even though in March 2025 he made deep staff cuts in his umbrella company called Breakthrough Energy. His vision includes building new, advanced nuclear power plants. In his company, TerraPower, Gates has heavily invested in nuclear because it is a reliable, carbon-free, and scalable, and a perfect fit to work alongside renewables like solar and wind. His next-gen nuclear reactor called Natrium, started in 2024, is a joint project with the Department of Energy. The reactor is safer and more efficient because it uses molten sodium instead of water as a coolant, and will be able to supplement gaps in power supplied by wind and solar.

Chris Wright’s Pre-Government Perspective.

The Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, has written in 2024 his own book, called Bettering Human Lives, that calls for more energy to lift third-world companies out of poverty. In the book Wright argues that “Hydrocarbons are essential to improving the wealth, health, and life opportunities for the less energized seven billion people who aspire to be among the world’s lucky one billion.” What he’s referring to are traditional fossil energies.

Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy

Gage Skidmore via Wikipedia

As an entrepreneur, a big step was to co-found Liberty Resources in 2010, an E&P company that drilled and fracked wells in the Bakken in North Dakota. The shale technique of a long horizontal well fracked many times along its length was profitable in the Bakken. The next year, 2011, Wright bought and co-founded Liberty Energy, an oil and gas service company that moves immense frac pumping units to a wellsite to frac a horizontal well. Liberty Energy was valued at $2.8 billion in February 2023. These were two propitious investments just ahead of a massive surge in shale oil production across the U.S.—a revolution that made the U.S. self-sufficient in oil and gas in 2020, the first time since 1947.

Wright discusses in his book, Bettering Human Lives, three global energy challenges of today: 1) energy poverty, 2) secure supply of reliable, affordable, and clean energy, and 3) climate change. “There is no reason that we can’t master all three challenges,” he said.

Wright continues: “Energy poverty is today’s most urgent challenge and this report explains why the longer, healthier, opportunity-rich lives in the modern world are simply not possible without oil and gas… Liberty’s mission is to bring modern energy to the one-third of humanity that still lacks access…” How much is one-third of humanity? Approaching 3 billion people since the world population is 8 billion.

It’s well-recognized that burning wood or coal increases pollution at the surface, and GHG higher in the atmosphere. But why is energy poverty ranked number 1? One answer is that over three million deaths occur every year from burning wood, coke, and other fuels burned indoors that generates particulate substances. That’s not all. The same particulate material causes several million extra deaths from outdoor air pollution. Deaths from particulate matter are estimated at 5-10 million every year.

If there is a weak point in this worthy cause, it’s a 2023 study by CSIRO in Australia that found that generation and transmission of electricity by wind, solar, and batteries are now cheaper than new-build gas power plants, and much cheaper than nuclear reactors (even SMRs). And since 2023 the trend favors renewables that will become even cheaper. Costs of battery systems in China, according to Wood-Mackenzie, are expected to drop 50% by 2032.

Installing renewables instead of traditional oil or gas-fired power plants would still be consistent with Wright’s statement, “There is no reason that we can’t master all three challenges.” In fact, Wright has said it doesn’t matter where energy comes from “as long as it is secure, reliable, affordable and betters human lives.”

Wright’s book does address climate change. “The third global energy challenge, climate change, has become so politicized and emotionally charged that rational, calm, fact-based decision-making is too often displaced by well-intentioned but hasty and counterproductive measures.” There is reason for this skepticism, as, for example, his book reveals how some weather extremes such as hurricanes and wildfires have not worsened over the past 40-50 years while GHG from fossil fuels have risen multiple times. This critical data, including the “killer quad” of weather extremes that haven’t worsened when global temperature has risen by 1.0 C degrees, underscores a deficiency of climate modeling that has been analyzed in depth elsewhere.

Trump Administration Is Crimping Wind And Solar Renewables.

Bill Gates is hugely disappointed by the Trump administration’s actions to cut renewable energy grants and tax credits for wind and solar. A prime example is Esmeralda Seven, an enormous solar farm that would become one of the largest in the world. Except that… President Trump has canceled the project, according to the Bureau of Land Management. Esmeralda Seven was one of the renewable projects set up and supported by President Biden. Almost 185 square miles, outside of Las Vegas, the development would consist of seven solar farms, steered by NextEra Energy and Invenergy.

There are many other examples: On his first day in office, Trump froze all new permits for wind projects onshore and offshore.

  • Out of eight east coast offshore wind projects in the U.S., in one construction has been stopped, and another three have been revoked or are under threat.
  • Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum has ordered all planned wind and solar projects on federal lands have to be signed off by Burgum. The bureaucracy is likely to delay such projects.
  • The One Big Beautiful Bill has reduced tax credits for renewables, or shortened their lives.
  • Although only 4% of US renewables lies on federal land, changes in processing of permits and other approvals are likely to lead to restrictions and delays for wind and solar projects on non-federal lands. Many restrictions and delays for wind and solar development apply to Republican-held states.
  • Altogether, new investment, financing and appropriations for renewable energies (not including nuclear) are falling in 2025 compared to 2024. But on a worldwide basis, the opposite is occurring, as renewables are zooming ahead.
  • The administration’s position of making things easier for oil and gas drilling, but harder for wind and solar, is peculiar in light of massive increases of electrical power that new data centers are demanding. In the past two years, wind and solar has provided over 90% of new energy in the U.S. Wind and solar in the U.S. now provide 15% of power in the U.S. What’s hard to understand is $22 billion of clean energy projects were written off or cut back in the first six months of 2025—more than 50% in red states.

Takeaways.

This study of three giant energy influencers is revealing. First, Bill Gates and Chris Wright have both expressed concern for the third world in regard to poverty, agriculture, and health. Second, their positions diverge on climate change. Gates wants to continue to address climate change, but not with such fierce determination as before. Wright early on said he would embrace all kinds of energy, so long as they are affordable and reliable, but as Secretary of Energy he has pivoted away from renewables. Part of the reason is he sees solar and wind as too expensive and too variable, although there is much evidence otherwise. Another part is Donald Trump’s denial of climate change, and his desire to restrict solar and wind renewables in the U.S.

Gates has pivoted towards adaptation to climate change. Wright has pivoted away from climate change and back to traditional energies. Trump has doubled down on restricting renewables. All have strongly pushed nuclear energy.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2025/11/04/what-energy-influencers-say-bill-gates-chris-wright-and-donald-trump/

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

Ethereum unveils roadmap focusing on scaling, interoperability, and security at Japan Dev Conference

Ethereum unveils roadmap focusing on scaling, interoperability, and security at Japan Dev Conference

The post Ethereum unveils roadmap focusing on scaling, interoperability, and security at Japan Dev Conference appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Takeaways Ethereum’s new roadmap was presented by Vitalik Buterin at the Japan Dev Conference. Short-term priorities include Layer 1 scaling and raising gas limits to enhance transaction throughput. Vitalik Buterin presented Ethereum’s development roadmap at the Japan Dev Conference today, outlining the blockchain platform’s priorities across multiple timeframes. The short-term goals focus on scaling solutions and increasing Layer 1 gas limits to improve transaction capacity. Mid-term objectives target enhanced cross-Layer 2 interoperability and faster network responsiveness to create a more seamless user experience across different scaling solutions. The long-term vision emphasizes building a secure, simple, quantum-resistant, and formally verified minimalist Ethereum network. This approach aims to future-proof the platform against emerging technological threats while maintaining its core functionality. The roadmap presentation comes as Ethereum continues to compete with other blockchain platforms for market share in the smart contract and decentralized application space. Source: https://cryptobriefing.com/ethereum-roadmap-scaling-interoperability-security-japan/
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 00:25
Understanding Bitcoin Mining Through the Lens of Dutch Disease

Understanding Bitcoin Mining Through the Lens of Dutch Disease

There’s a paradox at the heart of modern economics: sometimes, discovering a valuable resource can make a country poorer. It sounds impossible — how can sudden wealth lead to economic decline? Yet this pattern has repeated across decades and continents, from the Netherlands’ natural gas boom in the 1960s to oil discoveries in numerous developing countries. Economists have a name for this phenomenon: Dutch Disease. Today, as Bitcoin Mining operations establish themselves in regions around the world, attracted by cheap resources. With electricity and favorable regulations, economists are asking an intriguing question: Does cryptocurrency mining share enough characteristics with traditional resource booms to trigger similar economic distortions? Or is this digital industry different enough to avoid the pitfalls that have plagued oil-rich and gas-rich nations? The Kazakhstan Case Study In 2021, Kazakhstan became a global Bitcoin mining hub after China’s cryptocurrency ban. Within months, mining operations consumed nearly 8% of the nation’s electricity. The initial windfall — investment, jobs, tax revenue — quickly turned to crisis. By early 2022, the country faced rolling blackouts, surging energy costs for manufacturers, and public protests. The government imposed strict mining limits, but damage to traditional industries was already done. This pattern has a name: Dutch Disease. Understanding Dutch Disease Dutch Disease describes how sudden resource wealth can paradoxically weaken an economy. The term comes from the Netherlands’ experience after discovering North Sea gas in 1959. Despite the windfall, the Dutch economy suffered as the booming gas sector drove up wages and currency values, making traditional manufacturing uncompetitive. The mechanisms were interconnected: Foreign buyers needed Dutch guilders to purchase gas, strengthening the currency and making Dutch exports expensive. The gas sector bid up wages, forcing manufacturers to raise pay while competing in global markets where they couldn’t pass those costs along. The most talented workers and infrastructure investment flowed to gas extraction rather than diverse economic activities. When gas prices eventually fell in the 1980s, the Netherlands found itself with a hollowed-out industrial base — wealthier in raw terms but economically weaker. The textile factories had closed. Manufacturing expertise had evaporated. The younger generation possessed skills in gas extraction but limited training in other industries. This pattern has repeated globally. Nigeria’s oil discovery devastated its agricultural sector. Venezuela’s resource wealth correlates with chronic economic instability. The phenomenon is so familiar that economists call it the “resource curse” — the observation that countries with abundant natural resources often perform worse economically than countries without them. Bitcoin mining creates similar dynamics. Mining operations are essentially warehouses of specialized computers solving mathematical puzzles to earn bitcoin rewards (currently worth over $200,000 per block) — the catch: massive electricity consumption. A single facility can consume as much power as a small city, creating economic pressures comparable to those of traditional resource booms. How Mining Crowds Out Other Industries Dutch Disease operates through four interconnected channels: Resource Competition: Mining operations consume massive amounts of electricity at preferential rates, leaving less capacity for factories, data centers, and residential users. In constrained power grids, this creates a zero-sum competition in which mining’s profitability directly undermines other industries. Textile manufacturers in El Salvador reported a 40% increase in electricity costs within a year of nearby mining operations — costs that made global competitiveness untenable. Price Inflation: Mining operators bidding aggressively for electricity, real estate, technical labor, and infrastructure drive up input costs across regional economies. Small and medium enterprises operating on thin margins are particularly vulnerable to these shocks. Talent Reallocation: High mining wages draw skilled electricians, engineers, and technicians from traditional sectors. Universities report declining enrollment in manufacturing engineering as students pivot toward cryptocurrency specializations — skills that may prove narrow if mining operations relocate or profitability collapses. Infrastructure Lock-In: Grid capacity, cooling systems, and telecommunications networks optimized for mining rather than diversified development make regions increasingly dependent on a single volatile industry. This specialization makes economic diversification progressively more difficult and expensive. Where Vulnerability Is Highest The risk of mining-induced Dutch Disease depends on several structural factors: Small, undiversified economies face the most significant risk. When mining represents 5–10% of GDP or electricity consumption, it can dominate economic outcomes. El Salvador’s embrace of Bitcoin and Central Asian republics with significant mining operations exemplify this concentration risk. Subsidized energy creates perverse incentives. When governments provide electricity at a loss, mining operations enjoy artificial profitability that attracts excessive investment, intensifying Dutch Disease dynamics. The disconnect between private returns and social costs ensures mining expands beyond economically efficient levels. Weak governance limits effective responses. Without robust monitoring, transparent pricing, or enforceable frameworks, governments struggle to course-correct even when distortions become apparent. Rapid, unplanned growth creates an immediate crisis. When operations scale faster than infrastructure can accommodate, the result is blackouts, equipment damage, and cascading economic disruptions. Why Bitcoin Mining Differs from Traditional Resource Curses Several distinctions suggest mining-induced distortions may be more manageable than historical resource curses: Operational Mobility: Unlike oil fields, mining facilities can relocate relatively quickly. When China banned mining in 2021, operators moved to Kazakhstan, the U.S., and elsewhere within months. This mobility creates different dynamics — governments have leverage through regulation and pricing, but also face competition. The threat of exit disciplines both miners and regulators, potentially yielding more efficient outcomes than traditional resource sectors, where geographic necessity reduces flexibility. No Currency Appreciation: Classical Dutch Disease devastated manufacturing due to currency appreciation. Bitcoin mining doesn’t trigger this mechanism — mining revenues are traded globally and typically converted offshore, avoiding the local currency effects that made Dutch products uncompetitive in the 1960s. Export-oriented manufacturing can remain price-competitive if direct resource competition and input costs are managed. Profitability Volatility: Mining economics are extraordinarily sensitive to Bitcoin prices, network difficulty, and energy costs. When Bitcoin fell from $65,000 to under $20,000 in 2022, many operations became unprofitable and shut down rapidly. This boom-bust cycle, while disruptive, prevents the permanent structural transformation characterizing oil-dependent economies. Resources get released back to the broader economy during busts. Repurposable Infrastructure: Mining facilities can be repurposed as regular data centers. Electrical infrastructure serves other industrial uses. Telecommunications upgrades benefit diverse businesses. Unlike exhausted oil fields requiring environmental cleanup, mining infrastructure can support cloud computing, AI research, or other digital economy activities — creating potential for positive spillovers. Managing the Risk: Three Approaches Bitcoin stakeholders and host regions should consider three strategies to capture benefits while mitigating Dutch Disease risks: Dynamic Energy Pricing: Moving from fixed, subsidized rates toward pricing that reflects actual resource scarcity and opportunity costs. Iceland and Nordic countries have implemented time-of-use pricing and interruptible contracts that allow mining during off-peak periods while preserving capacity for critical uses during demand surges. Transparent, rule-based pricing formulas that adjust for baseline generation costs, grid congestion during peak periods, and environmental externalities let mining flourish when economically appropriate while automatically constraining it during resource competition. The challenge is political — subsidized electricity often exists for good reasons, including supporting industrial development and helping low-income residents. But allowing below-cost electricity to attract mining operations that may harm more than help represents a false economy. Different jurisdictions are finding different balances: some embrace market-based pricing, others maintain subsidies while restricting mining access, and some ban mining outright. Concentration Limits: Formal constraints on mining’s share of regional electricity and economic activity can prevent dominance. Norway has experimented with caps limiting mining to specific percentages of regional power capacity. The logic is straightforward: if mining represents 10–15% of electricity use, it’s significant but doesn’t dominate. If it reaches 40–50%, Dutch Disease risks become severe. These caps create certainty for all stakeholders. Miners understand expansion parameters. Other industries know they won’t be entirely squeezed out. Grid operators can plan with more explicit constraints. The challenge lies in determining appropriate thresholds — too low forgoes legitimate opportunity, too high fails to prevent problems. Smaller, less diversified economies warrant more conservative limits than larger, more robust ones. Multi-Purpose Infrastructure: Rather than specializing exclusively in mining, strategic planning should ensure investments serve broader purposes. Grid expansion benefiting diverse industrial users, telecommunications targeting rural connectivity alongside mining needs, and workforce programs emphasizing transferable skills (data center operations, electrical systems management, cybersecurity) can treat mining as a bridge industry, justifying infrastructure that enables broader digital economy development. Singapore’s evolution from an oil-refining hub to a diversified financial and technology center provides a valuable template: leverage the initial high-value industry to build capabilities that support economic complexity, rather than becoming path-dependent on a single volatile sector. Some regions are applying this thinking to Bitcoin mining — asking what infrastructure serves mining today but could enable cloud computing, AI research, or other digital activities tomorrow. Conclusion The parallels between Bitcoin mining and Dutch Disease are significant: sudden, high-value activity that crowds out traditional industries through resource competition, price inflation, talent reallocation, and infrastructure specialization. Kazakhstan’s 2021–2022 experience demonstrates this pattern can unfold rapidly. Yet essential differences exist. Mining’s mobility, currency neutrality, profitability volatility, and repurposable infrastructure create policy opportunities unavailable to governments confronting traditional resource curses. The question isn’t whether mining causes economic distortion — in some contexts it clearly has — but whether stakeholders will act to channel this activity toward sustainable development. For the Bitcoin community, this means recognizing that long-term industry viability depends on avoiding the resource curse pattern. Regions devastated by boom-bust cycles will ultimately restrict or ban mining regardless of short-term benefits. Sustainable growth requires accepting pricing that reflects actual costs, respecting concentration limits, and contributing to infrastructure that serves broader economic purposes. For host regions, the challenge is capturing mining’s benefits without sacrificing economic diversity. History shows resource booms that seem profitable in the moment often weaken economies in the long run. The key is recognizing risks during the boom — when everything seems positive and there’s pressure to embrace the opportunity uncritically — rather than waiting until damage becomes undeniable. The next decade will determine whether Bitcoin mining becomes a cautionary tale of resource misallocation or a case study in integrating volatile, technology-intensive industries into developing economies without triggering historical pathologies. The outcome depends not on the technology itself, but on whether humans shaping investment and policy decisions learn from history’s repeated lessons about how sudden wealth can become an economic curse. References Canadian economy suffers from ‘Dutch disease’ | Correspondent Frank Kuin. https://frankkuin.com/en/2005/11/03/dutch-disease-canada/ Sovereign Wealth Funds — Angadh Nanjangud. https://angadh.com/sovereignwealthfunds Understanding Bitcoin Mining Through the Lens of Dutch Disease was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story
Share
Medium2025/11/05 13:53