Dear Gates, human development and climate adaptation can go hand in hand

Ahead of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (COP), scheduled for November 7 in Belém, in the heart of the Amazon, Bill Gates published an article on his blog with the telling title: “Three tough truths about climate.” The piece sparked a wide-ranging international debate, with contrasting interpretations: some expressed full agreement with the message, while others saw this stance as a radical change of course from the commitment that the Microsoft founder has shown in recent years in the fight against climate change.

Gates' article undoubtedly presents arguments that can be agreed with: it recognizes the seriousness of climate change and the need to address it; it emphasizes the importance of supporting innovations that will lead us towards a decarbonized economy; and finally, it argues that human well-being must be placed at the center of climate strategies.

What deserves critical examination is the ultimate solution proposed by Gates and the methodological approach that supports it. According to the American magnate, in order to reduce and limit the damage caused by the climate crisis, especially in the most vulnerable countries—which are also the poorest—there is only one answer: economic growth.

Gates' ‘new’ vision raises questions on three fronts. The first concerns the very nature of the solution, which presents a distinctly US-centric vision. As geopolitical analyst Dario Fabbri often points out, it is a mistake to think that all the peoples of the world want to embrace it. The US represents 4.2% of the world's population, precisely the one that for decades now has been showing clear signs of deterioration in the overall human condition, for example in terms of increasing inequality, worsening physical and mental health, and increasing violence. Any idea of the future, of development, and of resolving the sustainability crisis that does not integrate a plurality of voices and points of view, especially those of those who will have to figure out how to deal with the climate crisis in the coming years, cannot be solid. If there is one place designated to identify this vision, it has been the COP for years.

The second point is even more substantial: it is difficult to solve a problem with the same model that created it. The current sustainability crisis is the result of an extractive economic model. It is true that economic growth has proven to be the main driver of improvement in the human condition, but there is a point beyond which, if we remain within the current model, the correlation is reversed and, in the long run, economic growth alone risks eroding well-being. The concept of growth is legitimate, but it cannot be proposed as a panacea without first radically transforming the current way of thinking and acting. If we want the economy to solve the problems of today and tomorrow—and it has the potential to do so—it is essential to orient it towards a regenerative paradigm: an approach in which organizations generate more value (economic, social, and environmental) than they extract in order to function. A model that does not oppose competitiveness and sustainability, but integrates them, and generates shared value among communities, workers, the planet, and shareholders.

Third reflection: Currently, as reported by the International Monetary Fund, the production and use of coal, oil, and gas benefit from over $7 trillion per year (about 6% of global GDP) in fossil fuel subsidies. This exorbitant figure makes the industry competitive with clean and renewable alternatives. In fact, governments are prolonging the life of an energy model that is polluting and risky from a geopolitical point of view. An action with a very high social and environmental return, as well as an economic one, given that decarbonization is profitable, would be to redirect these immense subsidies towards the transition, as well as towards educational, health, and development programs based on a regenerative paradigm. At this point, Gates' ‘concern’ — that resources for emissions mitigation are scarce and compete with those for combating poverty and disease — would also be resolved.

Have a good COP!