My reply to Bill Gates: climate and development are partners, not rivals
Dear Bill,
you were one of my inspirations when I left the CEO role at Paessler to focus on philanthropy and climate. My company and your Breakthrough Ventures are even co-investors and co-funders for several companies/projects . Your new post—“Three tough truths about climate”—argues for re‑centering on human welfare over emissions metrics. I share the goal of a viable future for our kids and grandkids, but I reject the framing that risks turning climate action and development into competing buckets. They must be designed to reinforce each other.
On the numbers, we agree: the world is tracking roughly +2.6–3.1°C by 2100 under today’s policies and pledges. Where we diverge is on the tone. A +3°C planet isn’t a manageable detour; it’s a harsher world with structural risks Gates’ post understates.
At ~2.7–3°C, billions of people are pushed outside the historical “human climate niche,” where most of civilization has flourished. That means more days when outdoor work is physiologically unsafe, surging demand for cooling that fragile grids can’t meet, and higher heat mortality—especially in countries least able to adapt. This is not a boutique problem of the future; it’s a public‑health hazard with a long tail.
Coastal risk scales, too. By 2100, global mean sea level is likely on the order of half a meter or more, with higher outcomes possible—and the rise keeps going for centuries, locking in chronic flooding for low‑lying megacities and deltas. Adaptation can blunt impacts, but it can’t hold back the ocean indefinitely.
The economics are brutal: the best evidence now suggests ~19% lower global income by 2049 is already “baked in,” with the steepest losses in hotter, poorer regions. Food systems are hit from both heat and drought; the IPCC finds agricultural yield risks triple at 3°C vs 2°C. That’s fewer resources for vaccines, schools, and everything else we care about.
So yes, innovate like crazy—and measure impact per dollar—but never set climate and development up as zero‑sum. The IPCC’s term for doing this right is climate‑resilient development: cut emissions fast while investing in health systems, resilient agriculture, cooling‑first cities, and social protection so each euro does double duty—reducing today’s suffering and tomorrow’s risk. That is exactly how I try to invest and give. At carbon‑drawdown.de, we back high‑integrity carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and this is done alongside mitigation, adaptation and even cooling, because stabilizing temperature requires durable CDR to balance residual emissions; it’s a complement, not a substitute.
Why the shift in your messaging, Bill? My read: the U.S. policy landscape is pulling the climate debate into narrower lanes. The administration has moved to withdraw from Paris again, rolled back EPA climate rules, and scaled back IRA‑era clean‑energy credits—while maintaining support for some innovation plays. In that context, an “innovation‑first, adaptation‑forward” pitch is politically safer. I understand it. I also think it’s a sad measure of our moment—and we can be honest about that without easing off emissions. Happy to be European, btw.
Bottom line: we should absolutely optimize for human welfare—but the fastest, fairest way to do that is both/and: slash pollution, scale adaptation, and build out credible CDR. Playing climate work against development doesn’t just miss the point; it leaves lives and prosperity on the table.
Dirk Paessler, CEO Carbon Drawdown Initiative
