Should the world pivot its focus from climate change to other issues? Part 1. A word from Bill Gates.

The United Nations is the final stages of preparation for COP 30, the 30^th Climate Change Conference of the Parties, scheduled for Belem, Brazil November 10-21. In the run-up, Bill Gates has released a note on his website. listing Three tough truths about climate he wanted COP participants (and presumably the larger world) to know:

• Climate change is serious, but we’ve made great progress. We need to keep backing the breakthroughs that will help the world reach zero emissions.
• 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.

His following material provided context and merits a careful reading in full. Some snippets, to whet your appetite: Mr. Gates went on to downplay the doomsday rhetoric of recent decades. He stated:

…Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise…

He continued: …the doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.

and argued that …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.

His post sharpened minds. As of this writing (Saturday), googling the phrase reaction to Bill Gates’ three tough truths about climate surfaced a raft of on-line commentaries. Some interpreted his word as revealing a decline in Gates’ personal support for coping with climate change, and expressed dismay.

Gates anticipated this. His counter included this:

I know that some climate advocates will disagree with me, call me a hypocrite because of my own carbon footprint (which I fully offset with legitimate carbon credits), or see this as a sneaky way of arguing that we shouldn’t take climate change seriously.

To be clear: Climate change is a very important problem. It needs to be solved, along with other problems like malaria and malnutrition. 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.

[The boldface/emphasis is his.]

He then urged everyone at COP30 to ask:

How do we make sure aid spending is delivering the greatest possible impact for the most vulnerable people? Is the money designated for climate being spent on the right things?

I believe the answer is no.

Sometimes the world acts as if any effort to fight climate change is as worthwhile as any other. As a result, less-effective projects are diverting money and attention from efforts that will have more impact on the human condition: namely, making it affordable to eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions and reducing extreme poverty with improvements in agriculture and health.

[Again, the boldface/emphasis is his.]

Writing in the New York Times, David Gelles summarized a few possible interpretations of Bill Gates’ motivation and intent. Gelles notes that Bill Gates’ actions over the years and up to the present show continuing commitment to reducing emissions. Gelles cites opinions that Gates is trying to reframe the climate change issue; to make it less political during a very polarized time. He also notes that social science has shown that upbeat messaging is more effective in motivating societal action than alarmism.

Gelles’ thoughtful piece moves us in the right direction. Gates’ article in question makes plain that his philanthropy has roots in addressing poverty and disease public health that go back decades. To the extent that they are interwoven with the climate change issue, his thoughts last week represent less a new departure than a return to basics.

We are left with a multitude of questions, but here are two:

Are Bill Gates’ reflections isolated, or do they represent broader worldwide thinking?

Suppose they do represent broader views. Is a shift from climate change per se to priority on human welfare more broadly – especially the welfare of the poor and vulnerable –  on balance a positive trend or a negative one?

More on these two questions soon.