Meta has an issue with its AI product

Microsoft co-founder and billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates is calling for a more optimistic strategy for confronting climate change, stating the world has already made tremendous progress and now must focus on improving lives by ending disease and hunger. In his latest memo, published Tuesday in anticipation of next month’s UN Climate Summit, Gates says it’s time to move beyond “doom and gloom” narratives — and not surprisingly, he sees artificial intelligence (AI) at the center of the next climate push.

But his message — one that was meant to be optimistic — has created a mixed reaction, with climate activists accusing him of downplaying the severity of the crisis and misunderstanding the condition of those living on the periphery of climate disasters.

Gates Calls for a Shift in Climate Strategy

In his “Three Tough Truths About Climate Change” blog entry, Gates argues that the “doomsday thinking” of the environmental movement is counterproductive. He believes it is leading governments and institutions to focus too intensely on reducing emissions in the short term, without action on more comprehensive strategies that would make life improved in a warmer world.

“Too many of the climate establishment are fixated on near-term emissions targets,” Gates wrote. “It’s diverting resources from what we can do best to make life better in a warming world.”

Gates maintains that while climate change is a risky threat, it will not trigger the “end of civilization.” Instead, he says, there must be a mix of reducing emissions and long-term development targets — namely in agriculture, health, and education.

Critics Allegue Gates Is “Dangerously Misguided”

Not everybody agrees with Gates’ view. Grassroots campaigners and environmental experts have outragedly condemned his memo as misguided and disrespectful of the plight of climate-impacted communities.

“He is seriously mistaken and misleading,” replied Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the nonprofit group U.S. Right to Know. “This kind of rhetoric risks pointing climate action in the wrong direction.”

Various critics argue that by deflecting criticism from emissions, Gates is giving important polluters a “free pass.” His reliance on technology-led solutions — such as AI-farmed crops — also fuels concerns about widening inequality and corporate control of the food supply.

AI: Solution or Two-Edged Sword?

Ironically, while Gates is an advocate for AI as solution, AI itself is exacerbating the climate problem. Microsoft, where Gates co-founded and remains extremely influential, made a commitment in 2020 to becoming carbon negative by 2030. The power-guzzling data centers that support complex AI models like ChatGPT, however, caused the company’s emissions to soar over the past few years.

Gates himself, however, remains upbeat about the benefits of AI, insisting that “the advantages outweigh the environmental costs.” In his memo, he pictures farmers using AI software to get personalized tips on planting and fertilizing crops, and health workers in developing countries using AI-enabled devices to enhance maternal care and disease prevention.

But ground officials argue that such perceptions underplay complex problems. Gabriel Manyangadze, manager of climate and food justice at the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute, says while AI gives important information, it won’t solve core issues.

“AI may give that information, but it may not assist when it comes to action,” he says. “Farmers can’t sow seeds without water.”

Manyangadze’s organization, and several others, have called for reparations from the Gates Foundation, accusing it of pushing African farmers into industrialized, corporate-controlled food systems based on expensive fertilizers and proprietary seeds — typically resulting in debt and dependency.

Overriding Climate Justice and Local Solutions

Critics continue that Gates’ paradigm also ignores the social and economic inequalities that make certain communities far more susceptible than others.

Although Gates recognizes that the poor stand to lose most from climate change, he believes they are unlikely to consider it their “biggest threat” since hunger and disease constitute greater direct threats. For people experiencing climate-driven disasters, however, the nexus between these crises is apparent.

When there’s a typhoon, you can’t fish. You can’t work in the fields,” a 17-year-old Filipino girl told reporters following Super Typhoon Haiyan in 2013 — one that displaced millions and killed thousands. Her story, alongside others, illustrates how climate change worsens poverty, migration, and even human trafficking.

“Health and Prosperity” as Climate Defense

In his three “truths,” Gates proposes that:

Climate change will not end civilization.

Temperature isn’t the optimum measure of climate advancement.

Prosperity and health are the best protectors against climate change.

He mentions the UN Human Development Index (HDI) as a better gauge of a country’s resilience in the face of climate risks, stating that improving healthcare and agriculture productivity can make countries more resilient to climate risks.

Gates’ foundation has spent billions on such initiatives, undercutting the cost of vaccine delivery, farm reform, and disease eradication programs. Critics argue that this makes climate adaptation a technocratic process — one driven by billionaire philanthropy, not bottom-up empowerment.

The Missing Piece: Accountability

Climate campaigners remind us that technological optimism should not replace responsibility. The call for “climate reparations” — compensating developing nations for the damage caused by industrialized emitters — remains one of the most urgent demands leading up to the next UN climate talks.

“Food and climate futures must be decided by the people who feed their communities, not billionaire gamblers who place bets on the next patented techno-fix,” said Loren Cardeli, strategy coordinator for A Growing Culture, a food sovereignty group.

Gates’ appeal to drive the “green premium” — the extra cost of clean technology — to zero is admirable. But it is naive, say critics. True climate justice, they say, involves confronting the perpetrators, investing in indigenous solutions, and addressing the roots of injustice — and not creating more gadgets and software.

A Divisive Vision of Hope

Bill Gates’ latest memo is just a statement of his long-standing faith that innovation will solve the world’s greatest challenges. But as climate disasters intensify — from African droughts to Caribbean hurricanes — some are questioning whether optimism unrestrained by responsibility is enough.

The world doesn’t need less alarm, its critics say — it needs more inclusive, people-driven action with a dash of pragmatism to balance out optimism.

With the UN climate negotiations approaching, one question lingers in the air:
Can the world be saved by philanthropy and technology — or will they, as some warn, simply reshape the crisis in the image of the people who can afford to ignore its most destructive impacts?