Commentary

The tech billionaire and philanthropist has hit a nerve by calling for a “strategic pivot” in climate strategy, says this academic.

FILE PHOTO: Bill Gates speaks at the annual Bloomberg Philanthropies Global Forum in Manhattan, New York City, U.S., September 24, 2025.REUTERS/Caitlin Ochs/File Photo

09 Nov 2025 06:00AM

WAKEFIELD, Quebec: Shortly before COP30 talks begin in Brazil, tech billionaire and philanthropist Bill Gates has launched a “narrative grenade” into the discourse of climate politics by publishing a lengthy memo calling for a rethink of how the climate crisis is framed and addressed.

Gates calls for a “strategic pivot” in climate strategy. That appears to have hit a nerve. Both social and traditional media were ablaze with erroneous assertions about Gates’ supposed reversal of opinion on climate change.

Despite reaffirming support for ambitious decarbonisation, his letter is being celebrated by climate sceptics while angering some climate scientists. United States President Donald Trump weighed in, writing: “I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue.”

This is false. Gates makes no such admission. In fact, he specifically writes that “climate change will have serious consequences – particularly for people in the poorest countries.” He emphasises that “every tenth of a degree of heating that we prevent is hugely beneficial because a stable climate makes it easier to improve people’s lives.”

Gates goes further, calling for major investments into global health and development (particularly on vaccines), and expresses continued support for pursuing net zero carbon emissions – all of which seems to fly in the face of Trump’s climate and foreign aid agenda.

Given this, why are so many climate sceptics celebrating Gates’ letter? And why are some climate scientists frustrated, despite his steadfast support for decarbonisation?

WHAT THE MEMO ACTUALLY SAYS

The core of Gates’ memo is a request for climate negotiators to consider “three truths”.

First, that they consider climate change a “serious problem” but not the inevitable “end of civilisation”.

Second, that temperature targets like the 2015 Paris Agreement’s focus on limiting warming below 2 degrees Celsius are not the best goalposts for measuring progress on climate change.

And third, that the best way to defend humanity against climate change is to pursue global health and economic prosperity.

The centrepiece of Gates’ analysis is the claim that technological innovations – like electric vehicles, renewable energy and battery storage – have already started to reduce the carbon intensity of global economic activity and that new, more consequential innovations in the future will be driven by economic development and healthy societies.

He provides as evidence changes in the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) carbon dioxide emissions forecasts – pointing out that a 2014 IEA projection expected significant growth in emissions, while a 2024 projection now sees significant reductions (though some commentators have contested Gates’ interpretation on this specific point).

Gates wants readers to know progress is being made on climate change thanks to growth and technological innovation, and as such, the “worst-case scenarios” are no longer plausible.

WHY CLIMATE SCEPTICS SEE THIS AS A WIN

It is Gates’ initial framing – that climate change is not the end of the world – that seems to have resonated most strongly with climate sceptics. The memo begins by critiquing the “doomsday view” that “cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilisation”. Instead, he argues that “people will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future”.

From that point, climate contrarians seized on the memo. One of the largest conspiracy accounts on X falsely declared that “today Bill Gates admitted himself that climate change is all a lie”. Others followed suit.

Even media outlets contributed to the confusion, with Futurism running an article with the deeply misleading headline “Bill Gates Says Climate Change Isn’t So Bad After All”.

This reaction is not surprising. The claim that climate change is not a civilisation-ending threat aligns closely with long-standing sceptic rhetoric that mainstream climate science relies on fear to justify politically motivated change.

Research shows that climate sceptics interpret the issue through black-and-white thinking, where cognitive binaries are used to help simplify complex systems.

Within this world view, if climate change is not apocalyptic, then it can be dismissed as exaggerated, and by extension, climate policy is unnecessary, or worse, a cover for social control.

WHY SOME CLIMATE SCIENTISTS ARE FRUSTRATED

The idea that climate change will not literally end civilisation is not new – even for Gates. In my own work on the growth-environment debate, I’ve shown how dominant sustainability discourses have long rested on the assumption 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 exploratory and high-risk technologies like small modular reactors, carbon capture and storage, and geoengineering.

The worry, as climate scientist Michael Mann expressed in reference to the Gates memo, is that this focus on “technofixes for the climate … leads us down a dangerous road”, because such approaches can distract from proven mitigation strategies and provide cover for continued business-as-usual burning of fossil fuels.

Other climate scientists found the memo downplayed the severity of global warming seen to date, not least the warming expected by the end of this century (which, in Gates’ telling could be up to 2.9 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial era).

For instance, scientist Daniel Swain noted his “dismay and deep frustration” about the framing in Gates’ memo (despite agreeing with some of its central claims), precisely for glossing over the known harms and systemic risks that lie ahead. Swain invoked the late environmental studies professor Stephen Schneider’s reminder that when it comes to global warming, “the end of the world” and “good for humanity” are the two lowest-probability outcomes.

WHAT NOW?

Like a dazed battlefield after a grenade is detonated, the terrain of climate politics has been unsettled by Gates’ missive, but it is not altogether transformed. The debate will continue. Sceptics will likely add screenshots of misleading headlines about Gates’ “admission” to their repertoire of doubt-casting memes.

Climate scientists, meanwhile, will continue to grapple with the difficult task of communicating climate risk, urgency and uncertainty, in a political environment that is not well-suited to nuance and complexity.

The memo does not change the science. But it does reveal how sensitive climate politics is to framing, and how the same message can become ammunition for very different projects.

Ryan M Katz-Rosene is Associate Professor at School of Political Studies, at University of Ottawa. This commentary first appeared on The Conversation.

Source: Others/el