November’s UN Climate Change Conference, COP30, will emphasize “the urgency of the climate crisis and the need for accelerated and collective climate actions.” However, it has a surprising new critic. This week, Microsoft founder Bill Gates issued a memo aimed at COP30 attendees proposing a fundamental shift in priorities: focus on human welfare rather than near-terms emissions targets.

Gates has drawn criticism for arguing that a “metric that should count even more than emissions and temperature change [is] improving lives. Our chief goal should be to prevent suffering, particularly for those in the toughest conditions who live in the world’s poorest countries.”

But his argument is entirely reasonable. It rests on three key premises: climate change poses serious challenges but does not represent an existential threat to civilization; temperature metrics alone inadequately measure climate-related progress; and improved health and economic prosperity provide the most effective defense against climate change.

Gates provides data to show that achieving net-zero emissions would result in a 1.9-degree Celsius temperature increase by 2100 compared to pre-1990 levels, while inaction would produce a 2.9-degree increase. This suggests that resources allocated toward net zero goals might yield greater humanitarian benefits if redirected toward energy access and disease prevention.

>>> Why Your Electric Bill Keeps Rising

The correlation between energy consumption and economic prosperity is striking. According to data that Gates cites, countries use more energy as they get wealthier, but they also get richer as they use more energy. The genuine inequity, he contends, lies in human development disparities. A child born in South Sudan faces mortality risks 39 times higher before age five compared to a Swedish child. These vulnerable populations require enhanced access to energy, nutrition, and healthcare infrastructure.

The relationship between economic development and energy consumption is unequivocal: no nation has achieved high per capita income with low per capita energy usage, and conversely, no country maintains high energy consumption alongside persistent poverty. Increased energy access facilitates improved living standards through enhanced productivity, agricultural advancement, and household consumption, thereby reducing dependence on subsistence farming. Energy availability either provides farmers with modern agricultural technologies or enables them to pursue alternative livelihoods.

High-energy nations also tend to benefit from superior healthcare infrastructure and water sanitation systems, resulting in reduced maternal and child mortality rates. They are likely to have a greater capacity for environmental protection measures, too. We have seen strong evidence of this in the past week. Hurricane Melissa’s destruction in Jamaica illustrates how natural disasters inflict disproportionate damage on developing nations, due to disparities in energy infrastructure, resilient construction, and recovery capabilities. Affordable energy access is essential to addressing these inequalities.

In his new approach, Gates has found a perhaps unlikely ally: President Donald Trump. Energy poverty in many African and Latin American nations drives migration pressures, as residents seek higher living standards in fossil fuel-rich regions, particularly Europe and North America. To support emerging economies and alleviate those pressures, President Trump has reversed restrictions on loans to developing countries for fossil fuel energy projects. Financial institutions are no longer compelled to finance exclusively renewable energy initiatives.

>>> A Modern U.S. Nuclear Energy Policy

Many of the 140 private banks from 44 countries that participated in the United Nations Net Zero Banking Alliance have suspended their commitments to restrict fossil fuel financing. The World Bank, which historically discouraged much fossil fuel lending while prioritizing renewables, may reassess its position.

This policy shift will enable developing nations to secure financing for conventional power plants, transmission infrastructure, distribution networks, and household connections. Importantly, this change should diminish China’s strategic advantage in lending to African and Latin American nations—often securing ports and other assets as collateral.

Gates’s reversal in the climate debate challenges the international community to confront an uncomfortable reality. While climate conferences convene in developed nations with generally reliable electricity and healthcare systems, billions lack access to the energy that makes such gatherings possible.

His argument suggests that the most effective climate strategy may be ensuring that vulnerable populations have the resources to adapt and thrive, rather than pursuing emissions targets that may perpetuate the very poverty that exacerbates climate vulnerability. Whether policymakers at COP30 will heed this message remains uncertain, but Gates has succeeded in reframing the conversation around what climate action should ultimately serve: economic and human progress, not merely atmospheric targets.