To: combjelly who wrote (353902 ) 11/4/2025 12:32:23 PM From: i-node 1 RecommendationRecommended By
Read Replies (2) | Respond to You can certainly choose to interpret anything you want to in any way you want to. However, here are some facts:Bill Gates' Recent Shift in Rhetoric on CO2 Emissions and Climate Threats authoring the 2021 book How to Avoid a Climate Disaster , which framed rising atmospheric CO2 as an existential crisis requiring near-total decarbonization to avert catastrophe. However, in a 17-page memo titled "Three Tough Truths About Climate" published on October 28, 2025—coinciding with his 70th birthday and ahead of the UN's COP30 summit in Brazil—Gates adopted a notably more measured tone. This has been widely interpreted as a softening of his previous alarmist stance, emphasizing that CO2-driven climate change, while serious, is not an apocalyptic threat and should not overshadow other global priorities like poverty and disease. Key Statements Suggesting a Changed View. Gates' memo directly challenges the "doomsday outlook" he says has dominated climate discourse , including his own past warnings. Here are the most relevant excerpts, which pivot from existential dread to pragmatic optimism: On the non-existential nature of the threat : "Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Fortunately for all of us, this view [doomsday] is wrong." Downplaying CO2's primacy as a threat : "Although climate change will hurt poor people more than anyone else, for the vast majority of them it will not be the only or even the biggest threat to their lives and welfare. The biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been. Understanding this will let us focus our limited resources on interventions that will have the greatest impact for the most vulnerable people."Critiquing over-focus on emissions reductions : "A doomsday outlook has led the climate community to focus too much on near-term goals to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that cause warming, diverting resources from the most effective things that can be done to improve life in a warming world. "Acknowledging progress on CO2 but calling for a "strategic pivot" : Gates notes that global CO2 emissions projections for 2040 have dropped 40% (from 50 billion tons to 30 billion tons annually, per International Energy Agency data), crediting innovations in renewables and efficiency. He argues this progress allows a shift: "Our chief goal should be to prevent suffering, particularly for those in the toughest conditions who live in the world’s poorest countries... This is a chance to refocus on the metric that should count even more than emissions and temperature change: improving lives."On energy and growth amid CO2 concerns : "From the standpoint of improving lives, using more energy is a good thing, because it’s so closely correlated with economic growth... [But] what’s good for prosperity is bad for the environment, given that the world still doesn’t have the means to meet growing energy demand without also spiking emissions." This tempers his earlier zero-emissions absolutism by endorsing energy expansion for development, while still calling for clean tech.In interviews following the memo (e.g., with CNBC and PBS), Gates reiterated: "If you think climate is the only cause and apocalyptic, you won’t agree with the memo... It’s kind of this pragmatic view of somebody who’s trying to maximize the money and the innovation that goes to help in these poor countries." He emphasized that every "tenth of a degree of warming matters" for stability but stressed health and prosperity as the "best defense" against climate impacts, citing University of Chicago research showing projected climate deaths drop over 50% when factoring in economic growth. Context and Reactions This shift aligns with broader changes in Gates' priorities: Foundation wind-down : In May 2025, he announced the Gates Foundation (a major climate funder) will close by 2045, redirecting focus to health and agriculture. Breakthrough Energy cuts : Earlier in 2025, his climate investment arm laid off staff and dismantled its policy group, signaling a de-emphasis on advocacy. Political backdrop : The memo comes amid U.S. policy shifts under President Trump, including the dismantling of USAID (impacting global health aid) and an executive order prioritizing "American energy" over strict emissions cuts. Gates echoes some of this by noting clean energy can align with growth. Reactions have been polarized: Critics from the left : Climate scientists like Michael Mann (Penn Center for Science) called it "tone deaf," arguing CO2-driven disasters are "already here" and adaptation alone won't suffice. Others, like Jennifer Francis (Woodwell Climate Research Center), say it ignores how climate exacerbates poverty. Praise from skeptics : Figures like Ted Nordhaus (Breakthrough Institute) hailed it as a "sober assessment," aligning with evidence that humanity can adapt without existential collapse. On X (formerly Twitter), anti-climate activists celebrated it as an admission the "hoax" is over. Defenders : Gates clarified it's not a reversal—he still calls climate a "major problem" needing innovation—but a reframing to avoid "alarmism" that crowds out other aid. Why This Suggests a Changed View on CO2's Threat: Previously, Gates equated unchecked CO2 rise with planetary "disaster" (e.g., his 2021 book warned of 1.5–2°C thresholds as tipping points for irreversible harm). Now, he frames it as a "chronic problem" manageable through tech and adaptation, not the overriding existential risk. This doesn't deny CO2's role in warming (he still pushes for net-zero via innovation) but demotes its urgency relative to human welfare, potentially influencing funding at COP30 toward adaptation over mitigation.For the full memo, see Gates' site: gatesnotes.com . This evolution reflects his dual roles in philanthropy (health-focused) and tech investment (AI/energy demands), amid waning public support for costly green policies.
