Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Bill Gates now warns that climate catastrophism clouds judgment. While climate change is real, focusing solely on emissions risks harming the vulnerable. A reasoned, holistic approach, including economic growth and adaptation, saves lives.

Bill Gates, the author of the book How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, is no longer a climate catastrophist.

In a recent blog post written for delegates ahead of the COP30 Summit (happening this week), he writes:

There’s a doomsday view of climate change that goes like this:

In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilisation. 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.

He continues:

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. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.

(And it’s true: while the latest IPCC report says that climate change will have an impact, it stops well short of saying it’s an existential threat to humanity).

Now, climate change is one of those issues that arouses strong emotions, including among Christians. Some argue that unless we head to net-zero emissions, we’re being irresponsible and immoral. Others agree that climate change is an issue, but argue for a more moderate approach, while yet others question IPCC reports altogether.

But regardless of where you sit on this issue, we Christians, who are commanded to care for the planet, the poor and the vulnerable,  should take note of Gates’ argument.

Here’s why:

1) Climate change is an issue, but it won’t be dealt with effectively by catastrophising its effects. We need a better, more reasoned conversation that considers all relevant factors – not just emissions.

According to Gates, the climate change conversation has been overtaken by those who see it as an existential threat to humanity. And it’s hard to disagree with him.

From the United Nations platforming Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg and her catastrophist ‘How Dare You’ speech, where she said we were ‘in the beginning of a mass extinction’. To schools across the West, drinking Thunberg’s Kool-Aid, encouraging their students to take part in ‘School Strike 4 Climate’.

I saw this alarmism first-hand at the 2022 Byron Bay Writers Festival, where several young climate activists told the audience that unless Australia takes urgent action to cut emissions, we’re doomed (considering Australia only makes up 1% of global emissions, I was left wondering how cutting our emissions would make any difference to the climate).

But this catastrophising affects real people. For example, a 2020 survey revealed that one in five UK kids were having nightmares about climate change. And there are growing numbers of men sterilising themselves to not bring children into a world affected by ‘the climate crisis’.

Climate catastrophism is also affecting our democratic process, which relies on discussion and reasoned debate. If you’ve ever tried questioning whether renewable energy is reliable enough to provide for a nation’s needs, chances are you would have been called various pejorative names (‘climate denier’), rather than have people engage in reasonable discussion.

But reasonable discussion is precisely what we need. Because, as Gates points out, policies have consequences – especially for the poor.

2) Bad climate policies that are focused on reducing emissions above all else will increase poverty across the world, making it harder for people – especially vulnerable people – to adapt to climate change

The climate-catastrophist view of climate change often leads to a loss of perspective.

And because of this loss of perspective, Gates argues, sometimes human welfare takes a backseat to lowering emissions, with dire consequences. He cites an example from a few years ago, where the government of one low-income country set out to cut emissions by banning synthetic fertilisers. Farmers’ yields plummeted, there was much less food available, and prices skyrocketed.

The country was hit by a crisis because the government valued reducing emissions above other essential things.

So, what’s a better way forward than focusing solely on reducing emissions?

3) The best defence against the impact of climate change is climate adaptation. And the best way to help countries adapt is to lift them out of poverty. But you can’t lift countries out of poverty with expensive and unreliable renewable energy.

According to Gates, a few years ago, researchers at the University of Chicago’s Climate Impact Lab ran a thought experiment: What happens to the number of projected deaths from climate change when you account for the expected economic growth of low-income countries over the rest of this century? The answer: It falls by more than 50 per cent.

Since the economic growth projected for poor countries will reduce climate-related deaths by half, it follows, argues Gates, that faster, more expansive growth will reduce deaths by even more. And economic development is closely tied to public health. So the faster people become prosperous and healthy, the more lives we can save.

Again, this economic factor seems to be missing from the climate conversation – at least in the media and popular culture.

And we see this in the actions of Western governments in Australia and Europe, which seem bent on taking steps that might reduce emissions, but weaken economies – and thus reduce our ability to adapt to climate change.

Here in Australia, our Federal Government is determined to drag the entire Australian population through an experiment that has never been tried anywhere in the world: getting us to generate 80% of our electricity from unreliable and expensive renewable sources, namely wind and solar.

And why?

Because their focus is on reducing emissions above other considerations, such as energy security and economic viability.

But in countries ahead of us in the renewable journey, this is already having consequences for real people, especially the vulnerable. Journalist Chris Uhlman recently summarised some of these consequences:

• Across Europe – that has gone down a renewables path – electricity utilities and manufacturers are warning that the continent’s rapid shutdown of coal and nuclear power plants has left its grids fragile and its industries crippled by record power prices.

• Germany has the highest household electricity costs in the world.

• Factories from Italy to Ireland are scaling back production because they cannot afford the cost of (renewable) energy.

Western Europe – and soon to be Australia is in the process of ‘replacing predictable generation with a punt on the weather and calling it progress,’ says Uhlmann.

We manage what we focus on: if we focus on human wellbeing, we’ll do a much better job of caring for the vulnerable than if we focus solely on reducing carbon emissions.

Will climate change have an impact on our world?

According to many scientists, yes.

But as Christians, we’re tasked with looking after this creation and our neighbour: we need to have a holistic view of all the relevant factors, not just carbon emissions.

Which means we should have conversations about climate change, energy, and the impacts it has on the vulnerable without the name-calling or catastrophising. Even as we might disagree and land on different ways of addressing climate change.

And we can thank people like Bill Gates, who help bring much-needed perspective to the climate discussion.