Opinion: How Bill Gates’s ‘tough talk’ on climate change gets it wrong
Opinion by Noa Greene-Houvras, opinion contributor
• 2h
Opinion: How Bill Gates’s ‘tough talk’ on climate change gets it wrong
Last month, Bill Gates published a memo titled “ Three tough truths about climate.”
Acknowledging that the world has “made great progress” on climate change and must “keep backing the breakthroughs that will help the world reach zero emissions,” he goes on to say “but we can’t cut funding for health and development — programs that help people stay resilient in the face of climate change — to do it.”
“It’s time to put human welfare at the center of our climate strategies, which includes reducing the Green Premium to zero and improving agriculture and health in poor countries,” he added.
His logic is that the climate “doomsday” perspective is, thankfully, wrong, and climate change will not lead to our demise. This doomsday perspective means we prioritize short term emissions goals instead of reducing poverty and disease.
He clarifies that climate change is a “very important problem” that he has been “investing billions” to reduce for decades. Throughout he notes the progress made so far on the climate and stresses the importance of invention. He questions why we use temperature as a metric for climate progress instead of measures like the Human Development Index.
I am not the only one who was fascinated by this memo or Gates’s way of thinking. The New York Times published an article questioning whether it will change climate policy, especially around the upcoming United Change Climate Conference in Brazil, known as COP 30.
Conservatives on Twitter celebrated the end of the “climate ploy.” Gates got people to talk about climate on a random Tuesday, which is impressive and hard to do.
The three truths he frames the article around are “climate change is a serious problem, but it will not be the end of civilization, temperature is not the best way to measure our progress on climate, (and) health and prosperity are the best defense against climate change”
What I find interesting is that his argument is logical and backed up with facts but reveals a real lack of understanding. Because he treats the climate as a solely technological challenge, Gates draws incorrect conclusions.
For instance, his thesis that disease is more harmful than climate change is illogical when you consider that climate change is worsening disease. A 2022 study in Nature concluded that 58 percent of infectious diseases “have been at some point aggravated by climatic hazards.” A great example is how rising temperatures give mosquitos a wider habitat range to spread malaria, dengue fever, chikungunya and West Nile virus.
If Gates wants to pivot to solving disease, that’s fine by me, but he can’t do it without also addressing the climate crisis. Neither exists in a vacuum, and it’s incorrect to treat them as completely separate problems.
The same goes for poverty. Gates admits that the climate crisis will have the biggest impact on “people in the poorest countries” so it is strange that he later pivots to arguing we need to divert resources from climate to poverty reduction. If they are connected, why is the argument that we must choose one? When we invest in climate change, we invest in vulnerable communities.
There is a lot wrong with the memo, and most of it is hidden behind legitimate statements, data and examples of innovation. Arguably the most ridiculous generalization is the statement that “climate change will not end civilization.” This is a prediction framed as a truth.
No one person, not even Gates, can predict what will be the “end of civilization.” He does not have the ability to see the future. He also does not have a degree or background in climate science, but that’s a separate issue.
Climate change being framed as alarmism or “doomism,” as Gates put it, is nothing new. But it is incredibly frustrating.
COP 30 is approaching, and as Gates calls for a switch in resources, I have a different take: We are not doing enough on climate.
America, under Trump’s leadership, has abandoned climate goals and international agreements. Wealthy countries are paying a fraction of the amount needed to alleviate damages, and are offering less each year.
Last month, a Category 5 hurricane left a “ trail of destruction” in Jamaica, Cuba and Haiti. When Gates looks into his crystal ball, he doesn’t see a climate-induced doomsday. However, for people in Jamaica, doomsday was in October. For families that lost their homes in the Los Angeles fires, doomsday was in January. For residents of Louisiana’s Cancer Alley, doomsday is every new diagnosis.
How many doomsdays must frontline communities suffer before Gates’s crystal ball shows their reality?
I don’t believe Gates’s memo was intended to cause harm, but it perpetuates a dangerous narrative on the climate crisis. We are at a continual crossroads on climate, and every step in the wrong direction becomes harder to correct. That is the real tough truth. |
