Shortly before COP30 talks begin in Brazil, tech billionaire and philanthropist Bill Gates lobbed a narrative grenade into the climate policy discourse by releasing a lengthy memo calling for a reconsideration of how the climate crisis is framed and addressed.
Gates advocates a strategic shift in climate strategy. This seems to have generated controversy. Both social networks and traditional media echoed erroneous claims about Gates’ supposed change of heart regarding climate change.
Despite reaffirming his support for ambitious decarbonization, his letter has been celebrated by climate change skeptics, while sparking some comments from climate scientists. US President Donald Trump spoke out, writing: “I (we!) just won the war against the climate change hoax. Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely wrong on this issue.”
This is false. Gates admits no such thing. In fact, he specifically writes that “climate change will have serious consequences, especially for people in the poorest countries.” He emphasizes that “every tenth of a degree of warming that we avoid is enormously beneficial, because a stable climate facilitates the improvement of people’s quality of life.”
Gates goes further, calling for significant investments in global health and development, particularly in vaccines, and expressing his continued support for achieving net-zero carbon emissions; all of which seems to run counter to Trump’s climate and foreign aid agenda.
Given this, why are so many climate change skeptics celebrating Gates’ letter? And why are some climate scientists frustrated, despite their strong support for decarbonization?
What the memo really says
The core of Gates’ memo is a plea for climate negotiators to consider three truths:
Firstly, they consider climate change a serious problem, but not the inevitable end of civilization.
Second, that temperature targets like the 2015 Paris Agreement, which focuses on limiting warming to below 2°C, are not the best indicators for measuring progress in fighting climate change.
And third, that the best way to defend humanity against climate change is to pursue global health and economic prosperity.
Central to Gates’ analysis is the assertion that technological innovations, such as electric vehicles, renewable energy and battery storage, have already begun to reduce the carbon intensity of global economic activity and that new, more consequential innovations will be driven in the future by economic development and healthy societies.
As evidence, he presents changes to the International Energy Agency’s carbon dioxide emissions forecasts, noting that a 2014 projection expected significant growth in emissions, while a 2024 projection foresees significant reductions, although some commentators have questioned Gates’ interpretation of this specific point.
Gates wants readers to know that progress is being made in the fight against climate change thanks to technological growth and innovation, and that therefore worst-case scenarios are no longer plausible.
Why do climate change skeptics see this as a victory?
Gates’ initial stance—that climate change is not the end of the world—seems to have resonated most strongly with climate change skeptics. The report begins by criticizing the apocalyptic view that catastrophic climate change would decimate civilization. Instead, he argues that people will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.
From that point on, climate change deniers latched onto the memo. One of the biggest conspiracy theory accounts on X falsely stated that “today Bill Gates admitted that climate change is a lie.” Others did the same.
Even the media contributed to the confusion; For example, Futurism published an article with the deeply misleading headline: “Bill Gates Says Climate Change Isn’t So Bad After All.”
You may be interested in: COP30 says that countries must be more resilient to climate phenomena
This reaction is not surprising. The claim that climate change is not a civilization-ending threat coincides with long-standing skeptical rhetoric that conventional climate science relies on fear to justify politically motivated changes.
Research shows that climate change skeptics interpret the problem through dichotomous thinking, where binary cognitive schemes are used to simplify complex systems.
Within this worldview, if climate change is not apocalyptic, then it can be dismissed as overblown and, by extension, climate policy is unnecessary or, worse, a cover for social control.
Why were some climatologists frustrated?
The idea that climate change will not literally end civilization is not new, not even to Gates. Work on the growth-environment debate has shown that dominant discourses on sustainability have long been based on the premise that even the most pressing environmental problems can be managed, and that economic growth and technological innovation are the best means of addressing them.
For some climate scientists, however, Gates’ memo places too much emphasis on technology, especially high-risk, exploratory technologies such as small modular reactors, carbon capture and storage, and geoengineering.
The concern, as climatologist Michael Mann expressed in reference to the Gates memo, is that this focus on technological solutions to the climate takes us down a dangerous path, because such approaches can divert attention from proven mitigation strategies and serve as a pretext for continuing to burn fossil fuels as usual.
Other climatologists viewed the memo as downplaying the severity of global warming observed to date, particularly the warming projected for the end of this century, which, according to Gates, could be as much as +2.9°C above the pre-industrial era.
For example, scientist Daniel Swain expressed dismay and deep frustration at the approach of Gates’ memo, despite agreeing with some of its central claims, precisely to downplay the known harms and looming systemic risks. Swain recalled the words of the late environmental studies professor Stephen Schneider, who noted that when it comes to global warming, the end of the world and good for humanity are the two least likely scenarios.
What’s next?
Like a battlefield after a grenade explosion, the climate policy landscape was altered by Gates’ message, but not completely transformed. The debate will continue. Skeptics are likely to add screenshots of misleading headlines about Gates’ alleged admission to their meme repertoire to sow doubt.
In the meantime, climate scientists will continue to grapple with the difficult task of communicating the risk, urgency, and uncertainty of climate change in a political environment not conducive to nuance and complexity.
The memo does not change the scientific evidence. But it does reveal the sensitivity of climate policy to the approach and how the same message can become a weapon for very different projects.
*Ryan M. Katz-Rosene is an associate professor in the School of Policy Studies, with a joint appointment in Geography, Environment and Geomatics at the University of Ottawa.
This article was originally published in The Conversation
Continue reading: The financial system at the heart of the climate challenge
Follow information about business and current events in Forbes Mexico
