It was just a personal note, a few thoughts to help put the world’s challenges in perspective before the United Nations’ 30th Climate Change Conference formally kicks off on Monday, Nov. 10, in Brazil.
But when the author is Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft and one of the wealthiest and most philanthropic people on the planet, words carry weight. And, as with all things in life, timing matters.
Gates’ musing about climate came as the environmental movement has dissipated in a flood of fatalism and frustration. Even activists such as Swedish teen Greta Thunberg, once hailed as the conscience of a generation for her relentless focus on a warming planet, has opted for generating publicity around Gaza.
It’s more than a vibe. Car manufacturers around the globe are dramatically scaling back investments in electric vehicles.
And of course, there is President Donald Trump. With seemingly boundless enthusiasm, he abandoned efforts to reduce global warming by reneging on federal grants, firing workers and attacking environmental regulations.
All this as the world has reached record levels of heat that scientists say is driven largely by the burning of fossil fuels. Here in the Northwest, we experience drought, wildfire, and ocean acidification among other ills. One data point: Glacier Peak in Snohomish County is rapidly losing its ice fields.
In his Oct. 27 memo, Gates postulates that the doomsday view of climate change is inaccurate.
“Although climate change will have serious consequences — particularly for people in the poorest countries — it will not lead to humanity’s demise,” he wrote.
Instead, Gates believes UN negotiators in Brazil ought to discuss more than strategies to reduce emissions. “This is a chance to refocus on the metric that should count even more than emissions and temperature change: improving lives.”
He says breakthroughs in electric vehicles, cheaper solar and wind power, and new battery technology make him optimistic that innovation will solve climate challenges. Poor people are dying in places like South Sudan right now, and the world ought to focus resources to reduce health disparities.
“This inequity is the reason our climate strategies need to prioritize human welfare. This may seem obvious — who could be against improving people’s lives? — but sometimes human welfare takes a back seat to lowering emissions, with bad consequences.”
Trump heralded Gates’ memo as a sign of approval for his anti-climate policies. On Truth Social, the president wrote: “I (WE!) just won the War on Climate Change Hoax. Bill Gates finally admitted he was WRONG on the issue. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!”
Gates would not be the first person whose opinion Trump mischaracterized. Complexity is not the president’s strong suit. To a larger point — does pitting humanitarian aid versus projects to reduce emissions do any favors to either endeavor?
Here’s what climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe said at a Nov. 4 press briefing convened by Covering Climate Now.
“He (Gates) talks about how climate change will affect people who are poor, but it won’t be the worst thing that affects them. It’ll be other things like hunger and poverty. How does climate change affect us? It affects us by making hunger and poverty worse. They are not separate problems. So we’re not talking about humans becoming extinct, but we are talking about massive suffering, including loss of life, as well as livelihoods, homes and more. And that suffering increases degree by degree.”
To wit: the catastrophic hurricane that hit Jamaica just days after Gates published his memo.
On Nov. 3, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown joined other attorneys general and cities to oppose a Trump proposal to stop collecting data on greenhouse gas emissions from industrial sources. Brown argued that without emissions data, states and businesses would struggle to develop effective mitigation strategies.
The fight goes on.
Gates is just one Washingtonian, albeit with a mighty megaphone.
When delegates meet in Brazil to discuss worldwide strategies to reduce climate pollution, they also ought to take note of the state’s voters and elected representatives in Olympia who continue to believe that without successful efforts to reduce fossil fuel consumption and lower temperatures, progress on everything else becomes so much harder to achieve.
