I first want to emphasize that there are a few "kernels of truth" in this memo. More than kernels, even--there are whole sections/paragraphs with which I strongly agree! But there are multiple fatal flaws in its underlying premise, and thus in its conclusions. [2/n]

I strongly agree--both because I personally believe that it's the right thing to do and also because the evidence supports it--that rapidly addressing poverty, health inequity, and food/water insecurity should be a first-order priority. Full stop. No argument there. [3/n]

And I do (weakly) agree that, sometimes & in some contexts, climate advocates (though generally not scientists) have miscontextualized climate change as a *singular* driver of global harm--even though, in reality, it's more accurate to characterize it as a "harm amplifier." [4/n]

It is also true that, as the late climate scientist Stephen Schneider reflected on more than one occasion, when it comes to global warming the "end of the world and good for you are the two lowest-probability outcomes." That's still as true today as it was 2 decades ago. [5/n]

But herein lies the problem: there's a whole hell of a lot of distance along the spectrum between "good for us" & literally "the end of civilization." Even if we can rule out both of those extreme outcomes, there are plenty of terrible things that can happen in between. [6/n]

In fact, the preponderance of scientific evidence in recent years points increasingly toward each increment of warming being MORE consequential, and harmful to both human systems and societies and ecosystems, than previously believed--not less. [7/n]

For this reason, the Gates memo presupposes a false dichotomy regarding climate outcomes: The choice we are faced with is not between "good for us" & "the end of the world," but instead how much harm we are willing to tolerate, and endure, in the years to come. [8/n]

It is also true, as is stated in the memo, that our current warming trajectory is less extreme than the one were potentially going to take. We're now most likely on track for somewhere between 2.5-3C of warming by 2100 vs. 3-5C of warming extrapolating from ~20 years ago. [9/n]

Here's the thing: 2.5-3C of global warming is actually still really bad news. Is it better than 3-5C of warming? Undoubtedly. But I don't think many folks, apparently including Gates & advisors, appreciate just how radically transformed a 2.5-3C warmer world would be. [10/n]

3C of global warming means many feet of sea level rise, fundamentally altering coastlines and swamping megacities home to 100s of millions. It means heatwaves that in humid regions could become, literally, unsurvivable for those outdoors without access to active cooling. [11/n]

3C of global warming means droughts, & floods, of historically unprecedented magnitudes across broad swaths of the planet. It means the collapse of ecosystems, and possibly even cascading effects that could trigger any number of critical Earth system "tipping points." [12/n]

The great irony of all of this? Most of these climate change impacts will be borne, most immediately and acutely, by poorer nations in the Global South--precisely those on whose behalf the memo authors are ostensibly advocating. That's why this memo makes me viscerally

To me, the statement regarding "pausing" outdoor work during daytime, once it becomes too hot, seems bewilderingly out of touch. I'm 100% behind efforts to provide air conditioning to those who need it, but this ignores basic realities (including human physiology). [14/n]

Wealthy nations, for their part, are not nearly as immune from the amplifying and cascading impacts of a warming climate (particularly with respect to intensifying extremes) as the memo authors seem to believe, either. But that is almost beside the point... [15/n]

Is all of this just a matter of semantics? Definitely not, because this memo is already being championed by those seeking to misinform and sow doubt about climate change and delay climate progress--up to and including the executive branch of the United States government. [16/n]

Ultimately, I am very disappointed to see this memo published in 2025 by folks who, I truly believe, are genuinely interested in helping others. Whatever "meeting the moment" looks like, this feels like the opposite of that. [17/n]

And while I do agree with some specific points therein, the memo overall conveys a poor understanding of climate science, a poor understanding of the societal & economic impacts of extreme events, and cleans on multiple false dichotomies to come to its flawed conclusions. [18/n]