Bill Gates’ recent article on the “three tough truths” of the ongoing environmental changes makes an essential point: we must place human well-being at the centre of climate policies. He is absolutely right in saying that no environmental progress will be sustainable unless it improves people’s lives, especially those of the poorest. And he is also right that COP30 offers a rare opportunity to put this truth back at the heart of international efforts.
Gates acknowledges that there are not enough resources to do everything and that it is therefore necessary to set priorities among environmental and social urgencies. I agree — the financial issue is indeed real and decisive. However, the debate cannot be limited to merely dividing what little already exists. We also need to discuss how to expand those resources, which inevitably requires greater contributions from those who have more and pollute more — a principle that does not yet seem to have been properly internalised in global discussions.
In recent years, Gates himself supported the idea of a tax on great fortunes, but soon fell silent when he realised that his fellow millionaires would not support it. The proposal did not advance in the face of resistance from wealthy governments and their economic elites. Yet why does the private sector — which has both the means and direct responsibility for emissions — not assume a greater role in climate and social financing? Nothing prevents the billionaires who meet to discuss the planet’s future from deciding to act collectively to finance it.
If, as Gates rightly says, “there is not enough money for everything,” then it is time to act on both fronts: to define priorities among urgent needs and to find ways to increase current revenues. And defining priorities means, in my view, placing hunger at the very top of the list. Bill, you cannot solve the problem of an undernourished child merely with vaccines — not even if that child owns a smartphone with internet access! A hungry child may attend school but will not learn or develop physically and intellectually in a healthy way. Before vaccinating, irrigating, or digitalising, we must ensure that everyone can eat properly. This is the foundation of any people-centred policy — whether climatic or social.
Another aspect of Gates’ article that deserves scrutiny is the role he attributes to technology, which seems to be portrayed as a kind of deus ex machina capable of fixing everything in the future. Innovation is undoubtedly a vital hope and must be part of the solution. But technologies do not invent themselves; they are the result of social decisions about what to prioritise — decisions that transform individual or collective inventions into social technologies applied to productive processes.
In other words, innovation, understood as a new technology incorporated into production systems, is also a social product, not merely the outcome of a brilliant mind’s inspiration. And deciding where to invest to most quickly improve the lives of the poor is, above all, a political decision. That, precisely, is what is increasingly missing from these endless international meetings about what to do next.
This is why what is truly at stake at COP30 is less about racing for “magical solutions” or new silver bullets, and more about building a global political pact — one that recognises that those who suffer the most from climate change — smallholder farmers, artisanal fishers, Black women, Indigenous peoples, among many others — are also those who most need access to the resources currently available to finance adaptation efforts essential for their survival.
Related Articles
Here is a list of articles selected by our Editorial Board that have gained significant interest from the public:
Gates is also correct in noting that agriculture is central to climate adaptation, a process already underway. Yet he overlooks the fact that, nearly seventy years after the start of the Green Revolution, its marginal productivity gains are increasingly limited — and still continue to contribute negatively to rising emissions. The agricultural development model born of the Green Revolution — based on intensive use of chemical inputs such as fertilisers and pesticides, and the monotony of monocultures — is now reaching the limits of its efficiency.
It is therefore time to seek alternatives, among them agroecology and other approaches that promote a new relationship between production and Nature. Not as a return to the past, but as a civilisational advance: a way of producing that respects natural cycles, regenerates soils and values local knowledge.
Gates also states that “development is adaptation.” It is a good phrase — but incomplete. True development must also reduce inequalities and strengthen local capacities. This cannot be achieved through internet apps, biological fertilisers or vaccines alone, but through broad social protection policies, programmes that improve income distribution and access to land and water. In short: through social justice.
By hosting COP30, Brazil offers the world a concrete example of how it is possible to combine the fight against hunger, environmental protection and inclusive growth. Programmes such as Bolsa Família, the Family Agriculture Food Acquisition Program (PAA), and the National School Feeding Program (PNAE) show that social policies can be transformed into climate policies, incorporating anticipatory actions, promoting food security and strengthening resilience to droughts, floods and economic shocks.
Ultimately, the debate with Gates is not about the importance of innovation, but about how to expand the horizon of hope. We must believe that change is possible — and that happens only through politics. The planet does not need more technology alone; it also needs more courage, solidarity and political will.
COP30, taking place in Belém do Pará, Brazil, is more than a diplomatic event — it is a moment to renew the hopes of forest peoples and the millions of poor across the Global South who are suffering the harshest impacts of extreme climate change, despite not having caused it.
As a final, side note: the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has recently launched a new call for proposals to fund agricultural research projects. This is an excellent opportunity to broaden its vision. Instead of channeling most resources to the traditional institutions of the Green Revolution — the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico, or the International Potato Center in Peru — the Foundation could also support agroecological research and innovations, especially in Africa, where its own partner organization, AGRA, has struggled to reach smallholders with sustainable alternatives. Investing in agroecology would mean investing in the future of farming, not just in its past successes.
