Why “both/and” thinking should guide climate action

ICYMI: Bill Gates recently made a “stunning claim” about climate change (if you agree with CNN’s headline, that is) in his essay titled “Three tough truths about climate change.” You can read it here—and we suggest you do before continuing on.

The essay has resulted in some hot takes suggesting that Gates has abandoned his focus on climate. While it is true that resources are limited, an “either/or” approach tends to be less effective than “both/and” thinking. In other words, refocusing on one aspect of an issue does not mean ignoring the others. 

Let’s start with what Gates said.

He leads off with: "Mitigation is the biggest climate problem we need to solve, and it’s been great to see it get so much attention." Further, he said, "We need to keep backing the breakthroughs that will help the world reach zero emissions." Granted, he also said that "much of the climate community" focuses "too much on near-term emissions goals," and we agree that there is no such thing as "too much" when it comes to mitigation. 

Yet, in the context of the way he opens his posts, we’re willing to consider a more generous interpretation of his comments. (More on that below.) To move the conversation forward, here are a few key points—offered in the spirit of both/and thinking and focused on practical progress.

We can benefit from further debate on mitigation

While we need to do what it takes to limit warming to 1.5C, a knee-jerk, blanket defense of all emissions reductions efforts isn’t helpful. We need science-based insights into which investments are most effective at mitigation—and where there could be co-benefits.

For example, we believe it’s fair to scrutinize efforts like carbon capture and storage, not to stop them (we need every tool we can get), but to rigorously evaluate where to place the greatest emphasis. Gates makes a similar point when he writes, "Is the money designated for climate being spent on the right things? I believe the answer is no. Sometimes the world acts as if any effort to fight climate change is as worthwhile as any other. As a result, less-effective projects are diverting money and attention from efforts that will have more impact.” 

We agree. If anything, a greater focus on effectiveness can help accelerate impact. In other words,  opening the aperture on how we mitigate can help ensure scarce dollars go to the highest-impact levers. We also should consider climate efforts that can deliver co-benefits, such as agroforestry or repletion of oyster reefs, which can help address poverty and climate–while promoting both human and ecological health.

However, as Gates said, "Unfortunately, this [UN COP] process  doesn’t tell us which technologies are needed to meet those commitments, whether we have them yet, or what it will take to get them." We need to do more to elevate evidence-based options.

This is in line with the memo, in which Gates makes points such as, "We have to make tradeoffs so we can deliver the most benefit with limited resources. In these circumstances, our choices should be guided by data-based analysis that identifies ways to deliver the highest return....Energy innovation is a good buy not because it saves lives now, but because it will provide cheap clean energy and eventually lower emissions, which will have large benefits for human welfare in the future."

And that leads to another throughline in his argument: optimism about innovation.

Innovation is both essential and a reason for optimism

Even so, both/and thinking reminds us mitigation isn’t the only track we must take. It seems pretty obvious that we simultaneously need to accelerate adaptation. At their most promising, interventions aimed at adaptation also can advance mitigation. Nature-based solutions come to mind. 

One critical point that Gates was making is that "It’s time to put human welfare at the center of our climate strategies, which includes reducing the Green Premium to zero and improving agriculture and health in poor countries." 

Our take: we need to treat interlocking issues of climate and wellbeing like the polycrisis it is. We would go further than Gates, and focus not only on climate and health, but also ensure a focus on biodiversity, as well.

This approach can help build broader coalitions. Yet, we also need a sharper, more resonant narrative. One that centers humanity in this issue.

Opponents have long derided environmentalists for focusing too much on polar bears and not enough on people. While that’s a false choice, simple narratives tend to prove more effective. One might deeply want to save the spotted owl, but arguments about forestry jobs historically garnered more support. What if we showed that more jobs can be created via conservation? What if the first messages around EVs had to do with cost savings, health, and a better driving experience, not fossil fuels?

We’re starting to see that kind of narrative shift, with a focus on energy affordability. It seems like a winning argument. Now, imagine if that had been the dominant narrative for the past 40 years. 

Gates doesn't quite make that point, but his thinking seems adjacent. He elevates equatorial communities and laudably notes that "no one is more at risk than the world’s poorest people." Indeed, one of his core points is that "it’s especially important to get the most value out of every dollar spent on helping the poorest." (The UN estimates there is a $284B–$339B gap between what developing nations need for climate adaptation through 2035 and current flows.)

Even with this framing, there are places where his positioning undercuts the cause.

Where Gates’ framing goes astray

Gates seems wrong on a few points—or at least, uses positioning that is likely to be unhelpful. Most notably is saying that "climate change is not the biggest threat to the lives and livelihoods of people in poor countries, and it won’t be in the future." As The Nature Conservancy's chief scientist Katharine Hayhoe put it in response to the Gates memo, "Climate change is not a separate bucket. The reason we care about climate change is that it's the hole in every bucket." She's obviously right. And, that's a message that many (particularly in the US) still need to hear.

That said, one might argue that most G20 leaders (or their voters) don’t care nearly as much about the world's poorest as they do about themselves. So, we think Gates is right to link climate action with improving lives—yet, there also is a benefit to showing the impact in developed (and highest-emitting) countries first. As Julio Friedmann, chief scientist at Carbon Direct, said, "Without ensuring people benefit from climate action, people won't act."

Which brings us back to crafting a message that moves people to act.

Build with optimism—and agency

Studies show that optimism can help overcome paralysis on this issue (and others). As we build a new narrative, it will help to foster a sense of agency and impact. We like this quote from Tom Steyer: "If we want to win, we need a fundamental recalibration. Climate can no longer be a separate cause. It must be the context for making people's lives better. It has to feel like relief. Like opportunity. If a solution doesn't make everyday life better, it's not the right place to lead."

In short, we should resist the temptation to flatten complex debates into clickbait. We’d all benefit more from wrestling with the nuances.