By Oliver Marchand — 03 Nov 2025

[#001] Gates' Climate Bombshell: A Misguided Pivot?

Screenshot: Bill Gates, Three Tough Truths About Climate Change — Gates Notes (2024).

Bill Gates' bombshell memo

Bill Gates just dropped a bombshell memo “Three tough truths about climate” on gatesnotes.com^[1], and the climate world can't stop talking about it. Published just days before COP30 kicks off in Brazil, the essay has Gates arguing that climate change "will not lead to humanity's demise" and calling for a "strategic pivot" at COP30 and beyond, urging policymakers to "prioritise the things that have the greatest impact on human welfare." The timing alone—released on his 70th birthday—made headlines, but it's the substance that's got everyone debating whether Gates has lost his climate edge or finally said what the climate community needed to hear. My view in short: I think Gates has some good points, but overall his article is very wrong.

The text has been widely commented on Politico Pro^[2], The New York Times^[3], Axios^[4], The New Republic^[5], Newsweek^[6], CNN Business^[7], and CNBC^[8]. I don't want to repeat everything that has been said about this piece, but rather focus on three reflections of mine.

1. Gates' Fundamental misunderstanding of the need to mitigate

He starts off the article with these three paragraphs

There’s a doomsday view of climate change that goes like this:
In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization. The evidence is all around us—just look at all the heat waves and storms caused by rising global temperatures. Nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature.
Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong. Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise.
--- Bill Gates in "Three tough truths about climate"

My primary concern with this perspective is the chosen benchmark. If the only catalyst for action is the potential end of human civilization, what then truly constitutes a problem? Events such as the war in Ukraine, the conflict in Sudan, the fatalities from Hurricane Melissa, or the trafficking of young migrants from North Africa, while deeply tragic, are not threats to civilization's existence. Therefore, under this premise, they might not be considered primary issues. I question who advised Gates on this particular viewpoint.

Gates emphasizes the false short-term focus on emissions targets by policy makers in the recent past. The CO2 budget problem dictates that the timing of emissions reductions is less critical than the cumulative concentration of greenhouse gases, which directly determines outcomes. Each level of concentration has corresponding, independent consequences, regardless of the speed at which emissions are released.

Furthermore, I believe Gates hasn't fully internalized the importance of the 1.5°C goal. While I agree that we are likely to miss this target, its physical reality means we are entering a planetary phase outside of humanity's experience where the true consequences are unknown. In most areas of risk management, like flight safety or drug testing, we employ the precautionary principle, acting to prevent even potential harm. Yet, in climate discussions, we seem to reverse this, demanding proof of negative outcomes before taking action. Even after decades of climate science and advocacy, Gates appears to fall into this trap, contributing to its amplification.

His call for unfocusing on degree goals, undoes decades of work agreeing on common goals and public education. You can always strive for better approaches, but the complexity of metrics related to improving lives should not be underestimated. I have consistently criticized this persistent aspiration for improvement without any concreteness or details over the years. I am always open to new suggestions on how to measure progress, even very curious and interested. I oppose vague and unsubstantiated proposals for undefined, supposedly superior alternatives.

The most bitter aspect of this worldview: if you reside in a region currently facing the deadly consequences of climate change, the fate of the rest of the world becomes irrelevant to you. There is no solace in others surviving while you and your family face eradication.

I find it scientifically unfounded to claim that climate change will not be catastrophic. The reality is that we simply do not know — the science contains deep uncertainty, and catastrophic outcomes remain entirely plausible. To downplay that uncertainty is to misrepresent the nature of climate risk itself. Gates again falls into a logical trap I call the reversal of risk management: instead of acting to prevent plausible worst-case scenarios, we seem to demand proof that disaster will occur before we continue to take meaningful action. In any other domain of risk management — from public health to finance to engineering — we operate on the opposite precautinary principle: when the stakes are high, uncertainty is a reason for caution, not complacency.

My biggest disappointment, however, lies with the media commentary surrounding Gates' message. It almost completely fails to acknowledge or even consider the very real and highly probable scenario that his message could backfire spectacularly. There seems to be a collective lack of oversight in anticipating the potential negative repercussions, the unintended consequences, and the public or political backlash that might arise from his statements. This lack of critical foresight in the media's analysis is not only concerning but also a missed opportunity for a more robust and insightful public discourse.

In summary: Gates’ statements risk giving policymakers a license to deprioritize mitigation — especially in the lead-up to COP30. What a shame. I share Michael Mann’s view that these so-called “tough truths” amount to a form of "soft denial".

2. A call for more rigorous cost-benefit analysis

Gates makes the case for employing rigorous cost-benefit analysis to strategically allocate limited resources for optimal outcomes. I wholeheartedly concur with this perspective. It appears that certain segments of the climate community simply ignore the fundamental trade-offs we confront. I've personally encountered highly committed colleagues who insist that prioritization is not an option, advocating instead for an "everything" approach. While I appreciate the sentiment of exploring all avenues, in the spirit of Paul Hawken's Project Drawdown, it's worth noting that even Hawken's extensive list of over 100 proven emission-reduction solutions is meticulously analyzed through an economic lens, considering co-benefits.

**Screenshot:** Project Drawdown’s *Drawdown Explorer* visualizes global solutions to replace polluting cooking methods with cleaner alternatives — highlighting emissions reductions, health benefits, and regional deployment potential. The data allows to look at cost-benefit analysis for this solution. *(Source:* *drawdown.org/explorer/deploy-clean-cooking*)

3. The Green Premium: An Underused Concept

Those familiar with Gates’ work on climate, especially his book, will recognize that much of the memo's content was recycled from it. A long-standing concept he advocates for is reducing the "green premium"—the cost difference between clean and "dirty" methods. Really, for some technologies today, this term is no longer accurate as the cost difference is often negative.
Emission reduction efficiency (marginal abatement costs, MAC) and green premiums are closely related concepts

Emission reduction efficiency (marginal abatement costs, MAC) and green premiums are closely related concepts

Concept	What it shows	Economic meaning
Green premium	The price gap between a clean and a dirty alternative that deliver the same service (e.g., $/ton steel, $/L fuel, $/kWh electricity).	“How much more does the green option cost today?”
Marginal abatement cost (MAC)	The cost per ton of CO₂ avoided when switching from the dirty to the green option.	“How expensive is each ton of CO₂ reduction?”

Mathematically, they’re connected by the emissions intensity of the product:
MAC = Green Premium / Emissions avoided per unit
So, if “green steel” costs $200 more per ton and avoids 1.8 t CO₂ per ton of steel,
→ the marginal abatement cost ≈ $200 / 1.8 = $111 per tCO₂.

I am not aware of more recent models or databases for green premiums or MACs This table shows the green premium values cited in the Gates article.

Sector / Topic	Quantitative Green Premium	Statements
Solar, Wind, Storage, Electric Vehicles	≈ 0 % or negative	These technologies “have reached cost parity or become cheaper than fossil-fuel alternatives.” The green premium is effectively gone in power generation and transport where renewables dominate.
Firm (dispatchable) clean electricity (e.g., nuclear, long-duration storage, geothermal)	> 50 %	Gates notes these sources remain “well over 50 % more expensive” than fossil electricity today. He highlights the need for innovation to lower costs for reliable zero-carbon power.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)	> 100 % (≈ 2× conventional jet fuel)	Clean jet fuels “cost more than twice as much as conventional fuel.” He cites aviation as one of the hardest sectors to decarbonize due to high green premiums and limited substitutes.

From a climate data scientist's perspective, this list is totally inadequate. We need to develop more comprehensive, evidence-based lists that are community-adopted and include time-series data and forecasts for green premiums and Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) curves.

Such datasets would be invaluable for future business planning and modeling. Companies can use them to identify promising investment areas where the green premium is shrinking, indicating market readiness for cleaner alternatives. Similarly, investors can leverage this data to assess the financial viability and growth potential of various green technologies, enabling more informed and impactful allocation of capital. This would also facilitate more accurate forecasting of market shifts and the development of robust decarbonization strategies across industries.

My final conclusion

In the end, Gates’ memo is a reminder of how easily the climate conversation can drift toward abstraction — away from the physical realities that define it. The climate crisis is not a thought experiment in optimization; it’s an unfolding transformation of our planet that demands both precision and humility. We do need better metrics, smarter investments, and sharper cost-benefit analysis — but not at the expense of urgency or moral clarity. If Gates’ essay provokes a deeper discussion about what progress really means, that’s valuable. But the ultimate measure of success will not be how cleverly we pivot, but how steadfastly we act in the face of uncertainty.

Oliver Marchand is a climate data scientist and independent environmental consultant. He writes about how to turn climate data into decision-useful tools.