Posted on December 29, 2025
People Vs. The Planet
Why Gates' tough truths are
unpersuasive
by
Daniel Clark
In late October,
leftist billionaire Bill Gates raised a lot of eyebrows by publishing an essay
called "Three tough truths about climate," which presents a dramatic departure
from his previous position. The
attention it has received has not translated into enthusiasm among his peers, however,
and it's easy to see why. While
maintaining that "climate change will have serious consequences," Gates argues
that "it will not lead to humanity's demise."
Therefore, he encourages philanthropists to redirect their efforts
toward combating starvation and disease in developing countries.
"Unfortunately, the doomsday
outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term
emissions goals, and it's diverting resources from the most effective things we
should be doing to improve life in a warming world," he writes, demonstrating a
fundamental misunderstanding of the movement of which he has been a part. From the perspective of the "climate
community" the doomsday scenario is not just correct, but unchallengeably so. It is supported by a consensus among 97
percent of all officially serious people, they tell us. Does Gates now presume to know better? His suggestion, that the cause to which their
every waking thought is devoted might be a diversion of resources from
something more important, is nothing short of heresy.
"From the
standpoint of improving lives," he continues, "using more energy is a good
thing, because it's so closely correlated with economic growth ... More energy
use is a key part of prosperity." Wait a
minute, this was supposed to be a discussion of "climate," not the virtues of excess. Economic growth? Prosperity?
Improving lives? Just whom does
he think he is talking to?
Skeptics
rightly point out that this epiphany on Gates' part comes during the artificial
intelligence boom in which he is heavily invested, and that AI is a voracious
consumer of energy. Putting aside the
likely ulterior motives of the author, however, he is absolutely correct in
what he writes about the correlation between energy consumption and prosperity,
and everyone knows it. Not only will
this fact not dissuade the "climate community" from its extremism, but it is
precisely the thing that animates it in the first place.
To Gates'
intended audience, the great conflict of our time is one between the human race
and the fictitious sentient entity they call The Planet. To them, it's a zero-sum power struggle in
which what is good for one must be bad for the other. Thus, human prosperity is the enemy. That's why they seek to diminish the standard
of living in wealthy nations, rather than elevate it in poor ones.
Somebody who wanted to improve
people's quality of life would not demand that we make ourselves dependent on
"renewable energy" sources that cannot in the foreseeable future provide more
than a small, supplemental fraction of what we need. Nor would he seek to slash the world's food
supply by phasing out commercial farming, and telling us to compensate for the
loss by eating bugs. He certainly would
not be of the opinion that there are several billion too many people in the
world, or that people must lead lives of deprivation so as not to reduce the
earth's carrying capacity.
Gates
should have realized this as he was writing the words, "Our chief goal should
be to prevent suffering." Since when is
that the goal of "the climate community?"
The imposition of suffering upon others is what they do. From their point-of-view, the desire to
prevent suffering is an obstacle to solving the crisis. We will never be willing to do what is
necessary as long as we are able to be moved by suffering.
Thus, the
spread of human suffering is how those in the "climate community" measure their
success. Don't believe it? Then why do they so adamantly oppose free
enterprise, which has been more effective in lifting people out of poverty than
anything else ever conceived by mankind?
To the contrary, their prescribed remedies for "climate change" read
like the agenda of a banana republic dictator: anti-industrialism, wealth
redistribution, nullification of property rights, population control, and even
compulsory vegetarianism. They could
hardly make it more clear that they consider prosperity to be the problem.
How
convenient, that the impending global catastrophe they warn us about
necessitates almost every policy outcome they've ever wanted. One might say that if manmade global warming
didn't exist, they'd have to invent it.
Or one might say that it doesn't, and they did. What do you say, Mr. Gates?
The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press