Recent remarks by Microsoft founder Bill Gates on climate change have had the desired effect — they have triggered a fierce debate on the effectiveness of the world’s current approach towards the problem.In a memo published last week, Gates — an influential funder of climate-friendly technologies and solutions — questioned the ‘doomsday outlook’ on climate change, and said humanity would most likely survive this crisis. Instead of focusing all resources and energy on limiting the rise in temperatures, Gates advocated greater emphasis on improving health and prosperity, which, he argued, can make people better prepared to face climate impacts.The arguments presented by Gates are not new. Mitigation (emission cuts) vs adaptation (building resilience) is an old debate in climate discussions. There is universal agreement that both are important and need to be deployed simultaneously to minimise the impacts of climate change. In the resource-constrained real world, however, trade-offs are imminent and hence certain actions need to be prioritised over others.The memo signals a shift in Gates’ own position, from favouring a mitigation-centric approach to one that prioritises adaptation. Considering his ability to mobilise big money, this change in emphasis can have very important implications for global climate action.Interestingly, Gates’ latest views align very well with the position that India has taken in the last two years. It is also likely to find support from many other developing countries that have been demanding greater attention, and support, for adaptation actions.The argumentIn his memo, Gates has made three broad points. One, that while climate change is one of the most serious problems to have ever confronted humanity, it is not an existential threat. It won’t result in the end of civilisation, as is sometimes argued.Two, that adhering to some temperature targets — the 1.5 or 2 degree Celsius targets mentioned in the Paris Agreement — is not the only way to address the problem of climate change.Story continues below this adAnd three, that health and prosperity, and higher levels of development particularly in the poorer regions, are probably the best defence against climate impacts. Improvements in agriculture, better health, greater access to heating and cooling, and efficient early warning systems for extreme weather events would not just improve the quality of lives but would also save lives from climate impacts.As mentioned earlier, these are not necessarily new, or radical, arguments. But the mainstream narrative on climate action, advocated most strongly by scientists and climate activists, is dominated by demands for rapid emission cuts, an immediate energy transition, and an early elimination of fossil fuels. Not surprisingly, therefore, the strongest criticism of Gates’ memo has come from the scientific community, which thinks his views could weaken climate action.“Bill Gates is deeply misguided on climate,” wrote Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist and author of several books on climate change, while plugging one of his old articles in which he had countered similar arguments made in the past. In a response he published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Mann wrote that there was no way “to reboot the planet, if you crash it”.“The only safe and reliable way out when you find yourself in a climate hole is to stop digging – and burning – fossil fuels,” he wrote.Story continues below this adKatharine Hayhoe, chief scientist at the Nature Conservancy and another prominent scientific voice on climate, was quoted by Axios magazine as saying that reducing emissions was not diverting resources but protecting them.“People often think of climate change as a separate bucket at the end of a long row of other buckets of problems we are trying to fix… this includes poverty, disease and access to clean water. But climate change is not a separate bucket… it is a hole in every bucket,” she said.There is also a very real possibility of Gates’ remarks being used by climate denialists to justify their own positions. US President Donald Trump’s immediate reaction, saying Gates’ comments showed ‘we’ had won the war on the climate change hoax, highlighted this danger.The rationaleBut it is also not very difficult to see why Gates’ new position is being appreciated in some quarters as an acknowledgement of harsh realities. Efforts to reduce emissions have yielded minimal results so far. Annual global emissions are still on the rise. The sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said global emissions in 2030 needed to be at least 43 per cent below 2019 levels to keep alive hopes of meeting the 1.5 degree Celsius target. All current estimates suggest that even 2 per cent reduction by 2030 would be difficult to achieve.Story continues below this adAnd scientists themselves maintain that even if global emissions somehow miraculously turned to zero all of a sudden, there would be no change in climate impacts for at least a few more decades. That is because it is not the fresh emissions but the accumulated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that leads to greenhouse effect. And CO2 remains in the atmosphere for centuries before disintegrating.On the other hand, adaptation or building resilience provides immediate benefits. An effective early warning system, for example, can save hundreds or thousands of lives from extreme weather events. Also, adaptation brings local benefits, which is why it appeals more to the developing countries.Despite this, less than 20 per cent of international climate finance is directed towards adaptation projects, something that developing countries have been angry about.Gates’ new views are thus likely to find a lot of resonance among the developing countries.Echoes of Indian positionStory continues below this adInterestingly, India did a similar reality check about two years ago, making almost the same arguments as Gates in its Economic Survey of 2024. Breaking away from the global narrative, it had said that keeping global temperatures under some arbitrary threshold was a “flawed” way of dealing with the climate crisis, and argued that rapid development and increase in incomes was the best insurance against climate impacts.India had lamented the fact that development goals had been “downgraded” and reduction of global emissions elevated “to the pinnacle of all economic policies”. It made the case for allowing adequate space for developing countries like India to grow rapidly. The climate problem would also be resolved on the way, it argued.Gates’ views and the China wayChina’s annual emissions grew by four times between the mid-1990s and now, but it focused on bringing prosperity for its citizens. It also built huge technological capabilities, and deployed more renewable energy capacity than the rest of the world put together.China has recently announced that it is ready to decarbonise and reduce emissions. Given the renewable capacities it has built up, China would probably be able to decarbonise at a rate much faster than any other developed country has managed to do. And its rapid emission reductions would be the most consequential for the planet.Not every developing country can emulate China, but this example lends credence to the arguments being made by Gates, and earlier by India.