Is Bill Gates still a climate ally?

Bill Gates claimed that climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise”. Is he still an ally for climate activists?

In October 2025, Bill Gates made headlines once again. He had “softened his stance on climate change” by claiming that it “will not lead to humanity’s demise”. Gates is well known for his climate advocacy; thus, this memo, which was published on his website in advance of COP30, was quite a surprise to his readers.

Initial responses criticised him for playing into the hands of climate deniers and for taking a U-turn on his fight against the crisis. Now, there may be some political reasoning behind Gates’ statement, which appears to distance him from the issue of climate change. I’m not here to judge or guess at his reasoning.

Instead, I dug deeper to find out whether he really is saying that “climate change isn’t so bad” (as one article declared) or whether he actually has a point. This blog will look at Gates’ statements and how he is both right… and so wrong.

Will climate change cause human extinction?

Climate change is bringing about more intense disasters.  There are the ‘obvious’ impacts of climate change – floods, droughts, and wind storms – that are causing widespread devastation and avoidable deaths. Additionally, climate change threatens several other elements as well; for example, an increase in diseases and antimicrobial resistance, financial system collapse and economic costs, and food scarcity.

However, will this alone wipe out humanity? Perhaps not. Nature and humanity are quite resilient.

Starting with the obvious, Bill Gates and his fellow billionaires will survive in their mansions or bunkers designed for the end of the world. On a wider scale, many wealthy nations have the capacity and time to adapt to climate change. Humans are capable of adaptation and have the intellect and technical ability to do so – we have the answers, but action is being delayed. Once the impacts are felt more acutely by wealthier nations, it is likely that action will follow. Therefore, some humans (directly linked to financial wealth) are likely to survive. For human extinction to occur, several factors would need to be present, including inaction, as well as other elements such as war, which we cannot solely attribute to climate change.

Therefore, on paper, he is likely right – humans may survive climate change, but there is no way to predict how it will really play out. We simply don’t know if climate change will lead to humanity’s extinction.

As discussed earlier, climate change will have many knock-on effects and we cannot predict exactly how bad this will get. For example, we cannot accurately predict how people will react to water scarcity and whether this will lead to mass conflict. Interestingly, environmental degradation is ranked among the leading risks to human extinction. As a whole, humanity isn’t as resilient as we’d like to think, and we will most likely see our demise due to climate-exacerbated resource limitations, poverty, or new diseases.

BUT – I’d like to understand Gates’ definition of ‘demise’. Does he mean extinction, or the end of the world as we currently know it?

Gates clearly states in his memo that people in financially poorer countries will be hugely impacted, with communities facing mass death tolls and changes to their livelihoods. Using Gates’ words, “most people…won’t be able to relocate” – we can’t expect whole communities to have the opportunity to move to ‘safe ground’. There will inevitably be huge losses for humanity, we will certainly see a significantly huge death toll and loss of whole communities and cultures.  Additionally, with these cultural losses and the impacts on communities worldwide, it is highly unlikely that we will be able to continue living as we do currently. With changes in consumerism, the financial system, and travel availability.

So, to define “humanity’s demise” as huge global loss of communities, culture and life as we know it – it seems to me that climate change has the power to be just that. And we can minimise this impact if we were to act faster.

Another key theme of the memo wasn’t around human extinction, but on where to direct funding.

Gates highlights the potential dangers of focusing funding solely on climate mitigation, where there are other vital sustainability-related goals to focus on. For example, we need much more funding dedicated  to “health and development programs that help people stay resilient in the face of climate change”. Gates stated that the climate emergency narrative leads to resources being diverted “from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world”.  He also highlights that money is being spent on ineffective ‘green solutions’ and there is inefficiency in ‘green funding’. These “less-effective projects are diverting money and attention from efforts that will have more impact on the human condition”. 

On one hand, Gates is raising a good point that resources should be used efficiently and where it matters most, based on the needs of the people.

We want to stop the worst effects of climate change from happening by reducing emissions, which will take money and effort. However, we also need to protect lives now – whether that involves making communities more resilient to climate change, helping prevent conflict, providing food and aid, or developing vaccines. When there is, unfortunately, only a limited amount of funding and resources dedicated to international and social aid, then we will need to distribute this fairly and to save people’s lives and livelihoods now.

However, there is no objective truth on what matters most and where money should be directed. One could argue that the impacted communities receiving the money should be able to decide what is the most urgent, and that might not be climate change. Equally, climate change will impact the whole population and future generations, and it is very easy to argue that it should be a top priority, with money directly allocated to fight this existential threat. There is no simple answer.

Additionally, Gates’ narrative reinforces the myth that we now need to focus only on protecting ourselves from the impacts of climate change, rather than on reducing emissions. Gates’ positive outlook doesn’t comment on the fact that we’re off track. In fact, he makes it seem that we’re doing well. This is inaccurate; it is absolutely vital that we continue to get to net zero. There is no point putting out a fire that we’re still fuelling.  

So, factually, Gates (as expected) is not entirely wrong and raises some really important ethical questions. However, was publishing a controversial statement – that was picked up by the press as fuelling climate denial – a dangerous move?

Of course, the media picked this memo up and, instead of reporting factually, focused on a narrative of minimising climate change. Trumpsays it ‘best’: “I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue”. Whilst this (probably) was not the intention of Gates, it was an inevitable consequence of sharing such a positive memo, minimising a catastrophic and devastating topic. In a political time where any excuse for inaction is lapped up, many climate activists understandably were frustrated.

However, research shows that the most effective method of climate change communication – in terms of motivating positive action – is one that focuses on actions and agency, accompanied by a positive story to tell. The memo has an overarching positive narrative, while not shying away from the fact that “climate change is a very important problem”.

Gates references successes in innovation throughout the report that have had large, positive consequences in combating climate change. Gates is clearly trying to promote a more positive narrative on climate change, aligning with the latest scientific research that positive narratives are more impactful.

Conclusion

Overall, scientifically, I don’t disagree with Gates. At the end of the day, he knows what he is talking about and makes valid arguments, which hopefully isn’t surprising. Many of Gate’s opinions on human welfare, rather than pure environmental considerations, are at the heart of the climate justice movement. Read more about that here (link to climate justice blogs).

I also like the climate-positive angle. There have been so many green initiatives and innovations that are often unsung heroes; it gives hope, which helps drive action.

However, I do think that the narrative just is not quite right – it lacks empathy and understanding of the loss that many communities are facing. It also lacks the urgency required to mitigate climate change as much as possible, by reducing emissions.

I believe that the memo overlooks the fact that climate change will have widespread impacts, some of which are unknown, and that it will exacerbate existing issues such as war, poverty, and famine. This can easily lead to an existential threat to ‘humanity as we know it’, and perhaps will lead to the extinction of humans. Most importantly, for many communities (and biodiversity, which I haven’t touched on in this blog), climate change is already causing a demise. The memo makes it sound like we have to pick a side, and that side shouldn’t be climate mitigation (reducing emissions). To me, the below quote puts it best:

“There is no reason to pit poverty reduction versus climate transformation,” Columbia University Center for Sustainable Development director Jeffrey Sachs told CNN, calling the memo “pointless, vague, unhelpful, and confusing”.

Discussion

• What do you think about Bill Gate’s ‘climate memo’?
• Do you agree with his more optimistic narrative, or do you think this helps to fuel inaction?

Let me know in the discussion!

Sources and further reading

1. Musto, J. Bill Gates says climate change ‘will not lead to humanity’s demise.’. s.l. : The Independent, 2025.]

2. Gates, B. Three tough truths about climate. [Online] 2025. [Cited: 28 November 2025.] https://www.gatesnotes.com/three-tough-truths-about-climate.

3. Tangermann, V. Bill Gates Says Climate Change Isn’t So Bad After All. Futurism.com. [Online] 2025. [Cited: 28 November 2025.] https://futurism.com/science-energy/bill-gates-climate-change-isnt-so-bad.

4. A review of the global climate change impacts, adaptation, and sustainable mitigation measures. Abbass, K., Qasim, M.Z., Song, H. et al. s.l. : Environmental Science and Pollution Research , 2022, Vol. 29.

5. A bunker of one’s own: The super-rich and the mansions for the end of the world. Cousin, B and Schultz , N. s.l. : Ephemera: theory and politics in organization, 2024.

6. Extinction, climate change and the ecology of Homo sapiens. Tilman, D. s.l. : Journal of Ecology, 2021.

7. Extinction of the human species: What could cause it and how likely is it to occur? ÓhÉigeartaigh, S. s.l. : Cambridge Prisms: Extinction, 2025, Vol. 3.

8. Staff, A. Trump declares victory against climate ‘hoax’ after Bill Gates comments. CTVNews. [Online] 2025. https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/trump-declares-victory-against-climate-hoax-after-bill-gates-comments/.