Blog

How Can Someone So Smart Be So Ignorant?

Bill Gates was until recently considered a climate activist. While global health initiatives have been his highest priority, he has also devoted some of his enormous wealth to early-stage technologies with the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[1] In 2021, he published “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster” discussing policies and actions for individuals to achieve zero emissions. Yet only a few weeks ago he announced a dramatic change in beliefs in a lengthy message addressed to the 196 nations and thousands of observers attending the international climate negotiations in Belem, Brazil (COP30). Gates asserted climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” and that while poor people are the most vulnerable to climate change “poverty and disease” are more pressing problems. Consequently, he asked those attending 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?

While the need to increase support for poverty alleviation is compelling, making this case to an international meeting of climate negotiators was warmly welcomed by President Trump[1] and at least briefly a significant distraction. The logic behind his message was also aggressively denounced by climate scientists[2] and activists[3]. Development aid has declined[4] but not due to climate finance, and investments to reduce vulnerability to climate change can also be effective strategies for poverty alleviation — there is no inherent conflict.

For many reasons, Gates could hardly have chosen a less appropriate audience or misdirected message:

· President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement, told the UN climate change is a “con job,” sent no representatives to COP30, and continues to actively promote greater use of fossil fuels at home and abroad. The Trump Administration has effectively eliminated U.S. development assistance for the poorest countries[5] and therefore he — not the rest of the world — should be the prime target of Gates message. Trump policies reducing air pollution regulations and other environmental safeguards are also disproportionately impacting the poor and minorities.

· Climate impacts are increasingly a present problem, not an issue for some distant future with major adverse impacts on development. Just in small island developing states like Jamaica, between 2000 and 2022 extreme weather events caused an estimated $141 billion in economic losses; debt service payments in these countries are now growing faster than spending on education, health, and capital investment combined. Yet the vast majority of developing countries contribute only a tiny fraction of global carbon emissions.[6] Their priority accordingly is recompense for “loss and damages” and investment in measures to reduce their vulnerability.

· Gates’s assertion that there is a trade-off between climate action and development is fallacious. Renewable energy is the least cost source of power almost everywhere and unlike large power plants is often operational after disasters. China continues to lower prices on solar equipment, batteries, and EV’s.[7] Trump’s efforts to promote fossil fuel use everywhere will cost developing nations more and undermine development.

· A relatively small share of climate finance is from mechanisms agreed by Gates target audience, UN negotiators. 80% of climate finance is raised and spent domestically and more than half is from private actors. The modest amount of finance from donor supported climate funds is for projects approved by the recipient countries and reviewed by technical and financial experts. Accordingly, the projects align with country priorities, not some independent strategy — or the whims of a billionaire.

· Many climate initiatives save energy, protect the most vulnerable, and contribute to economic growth. One example is the Brazil Tropical Forest Forever Facility designed to provide economic incentives to countries and communities for conserving and restoring tropical forests. A significant portion of funds are earmarked for Indigenous Peoples and local communities — and poverty alleviation. Another example is the National Climate Finance Strategy recently launched by Sri Lanka which outlines a low-carbon, climate-smart future which also creates jobs, strengthens the economy, and reduces poverty.

· Gates need not worry about UN agreements to give greater support for mitigating GHG emissions. Countries are not moving aggressively to reduce their carbon emissions despite warnings from climate scientists and activists of the increasing risks. Many failed even to submit climate action plans required by the Paris Agreement. The final agreement in Belem was considered a win for oil interests as it included no direct mention of the need to transition away from fossil fuels.

· Gates confident prediction that climate change is not a significant threat to humanity’s future presumes warming will not exceed safeguards. Unfortunately, current commitments as assessed by the IEA are not nearly sufficient to avoid increasingly frequent, widespread, and costly disasters. As warming exceeds target levels set by scientists, the risks of irreversible tipping points and unanticipated impacts accelerate challenging our ability to prepare and adapt. Examples are the potential transition of the Amazon from rainforest to savannah and the instability of many glaciers.

· As President Trump’s comments indicate, Gates’s argument can be understood as supporting reduced efforts to reduce fossil fuel use and accepting the consequences of ever greater levels of warming. This is very, very dangerous. As a recent article in The Atlantic observes: “If climate negotiators were naive about the political economy of the energy transition when COP started 30 years ago, though, then the purveyors of this kind of “pragmatism” are downright oblivious to the implications of a 3 degrees–warmer-world that they’ve made conceptual peace with.”[1]

· While poverty alleviation is urgent and merits greater efforts, the decline in global poverty reduction is increasingly due to economic stagnation in poor countries, primarily in Sub-Saharan Africa. The causes are endemic: poor governance, corruption, weak educational systems, internal conflict, and other complex factors — not because of spending on climate change that would otherwise address these issues.

[1] Ibid. “Even the UNFCCC secretariat, traditionally restrained in its language and conduct, noted last year that ‘greenhouse gas pollution at these levels will guarantee a human and economic trainwreck for every country, without exception.’”

While not headline worthy, the message Gates should have delivered was support for increasing the share of climate finance for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. As noted in a recent report by the UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, “Fragile and conflict-affected countries hosting refugees receive only a quarter of the climate finance they need, while the vast majority of global climate funding never reaches displaced communities or their hosts.” Some recognition was given to this need in Belem in the form of agreement to create a “just transition mechanism” with explicit recognition of the need to include marginalized groups in strategies for climate action. Gates should know better if he wants to be taken seriously and not embarrassed by praise from President Trump.

[1] President Trump’s reaction: “I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful”

[2] Michael Mann: “Here’s the thing, Bill Gates: There is no “patch” for the climate crisis. And there is no way to reboot the planet if you crash it. The only safe and reliable way out when you find yourself in a climate hole is to stop digging — and burning — fossil fuels.”

[3] Bill McKibben: “Bill Gates hasn’t made sense on climate since he teamed up with Bjorn Lomborg in 2009. This is just a restating of Bjorn’s book from this year about how we have a finite amount of money and we shouldn’t use it for climate. What they get wrong is that climate solutions are now fully profitable.”

[4] OECD 2025: In 2025, least developed countries (LDCs) are projected to see a 13–25% fall in net bilateral ODA from DAC providers. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa could face a 16–28% decline.

[5] The Trump Administration has cut billions in aid to Africa with substantial further cuts proposed in the 2026 budget. The cuts have resulted in thousands of deaths from preventable diseases and left chaos in development programs cutoff with no notice.

[6] A recent Oxfam report found that the richest 0.1 percent of the world’s population produced more carbon pollution in a day than the poorest 50 percent emit all year. J. Green, Global Climate Policy is Broken, Foreign Affairs, Nov 7, 2025

[7] Ironically, the U.S. trade policies have given China further incentive to lower prices and promote exports of renewable energy technologies to Africa and other developing countries.

[1] Gates has been investing in small modular nuclear reactors and other still costly technologies which — if successful — will provide benefits only in future decades.

Alan Miller is a former climate change officer in the International Finance Corporation (2003–13) and climate change team leader, Global Environment Facility (1997–2003). Besides other engagements, Alan is an active editor for Climate Conscious submissions on Medium.