books climate change technology

Book review: How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, by Bill Gates

I know some people have grumbled about Bill Gates writing a book on climate change. But if we have to have billionaires, we want them to be involved in the biggest challenges facing humanity, rather than firing their money into space*. Even if you disagree, this is likely to be the most read climate book of the year. Politicians who read one climate book a decade will probably pick this one. It’s worth reading because it’s going to be influential.

Because he’s a very smart man, Gates is aware of the grumbling. “The world is not exactly lacking in rich men with big ideas about what other people should do” he says at the outset. “I can’t deny being a rich guy with an opinion. I do believe, though, that it is an informed opinion, and I am always trying to learn more.”

On that point, I would agree. As we’ve seen with his work on poverty, health, or unpopular topics like toilets, Gates has a huge capacity to take in information. He calls in experts and asks questions, and he has a genuine enthusiasm for topics others might find very boring, such as fertiliser or cement or the workings of the US energy grid. This pays off in the book’s approach, which is to distil the enormous wicked problem of climate change into categories that are easy to understand. There are five of them and they get a chapter each:

  • How we plug in
  • How we make things
  • How we grow things
  • How we get around
  • How we keep cool and stay warm

Across these five intuitively named chapters we get an analysis of renewable energy (alongside other options such as nuclear), low carbon agriculture, or air conditioning. Having worked in development, Gates has an eye on the difference energy can make in poorer countries, so that gets factored in here in ways that many climate books forget. The chapter on materials also covers a number of things that don’t get enough attention. “What’s your plan for cement?” is Gates’ shorthand reminder that every sector matters.

As you would expect, technological solutions are to the fore, showing where there are good technologies that can be accelerated, and where they are yet to be developed. Aviation, for example, has no substantial answer to low-carbon, long-distance flights. For some, that leaves no option but to suggest we do less of it, which is never an answer for Gates:

“When somebody wants toast for breakfast, we need to make sure there’s a system in place that can deliver the bread, the toaster, and the electricity to run the toaster without adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. We aren’t going to solve the climate problem by telling people not to eat toast.”

That’s an appealingly no-nonsense explanation, but there are plenty of examples of things where less would have multiple benefits. Most Americans would be healthier eating less meat, so ruling it out misses the opportunity for a win-win. The book has one sentence about walking and cycling in amongst its pages on electric cars, but there are multiple problems with traffic, well beyond carbon. And there are many advantages to active transport. The book’s unwillingness to countenance behaviour change is frustrating, as if (provided it is low carbon) consumer capitalism is the best of all possible worlds.

Still, Gates writes with clarity, the rigour of an analytical mind, and with glimpses of self-deprecating humour. He is aware of climate justice and the need for policy changes alongside technology – “techo-fixes are not sufficient, but they are necessary.” And that’s a pretty good way to sum up the book. The perspectives of American tech billionaires are not sufficient to avoid a climate disaster, but they are necessary.

*See Jeff Bezos, who once said that “the only way that I can see to deploy this much financial resource is by converting my Amazon winnings into space travel. That is basically it.” Work on major challenges and space travel are not mutually exclusive, and I’m not opposed to space missions. It’s the lack of awareness and imagination – ‘that’s basically it’ – that is most disturbing. More recent interviews suggest he may have changed his mind.


  1. I heard Bill Gates read this on Radio 4. It was imaginative stuff except that he never mentioned the war industry at all. I appreciate he does benefit from substantial military contracts. Aside from that minor gripe perhaps he needs to take account of this comment from Watson institute report:
    “The US military is the largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels in the world and a key contributor to climate collapse”
    And that of course is just the US military.
    Add to that the fact that wars inflict huge damage on the environment, economies and society (which are additional problems which need sorting). Add to that the fact that the war industry is a vast cancer that diverts huge resources in labour, research, raw materials, finance away from useful occupations and into a totally useless and destructive activity.
    I tried to find a contact for Bill Gates to put this to him but his and Melinda’s foundation would give nothing away.
    Why does this hugely damaging immoral activity get given a free ride so often? The US military budget for this year is $740 billion, and the only complaint from Congress was that the President had not asked for enough, so they plonked another 25 billion on top.
    How you going to change the world Bill when you totally ignore one of the major problems?

    1. I’m not surprised that Bill Gates keeps his email address secret. I expect it would be inundated with anti-vax death threats at the moment. But your point is a good one – the military has an enormous impact on the climate and nowhere more so than the US.

      I have seen this raised a handful of times, in the book The Shock of the Anthropocene for example, or Berner-Lee’s The Carbon Footprint of Everything. We used to talk about the peace dividend at one point. Perhaps the idea could be revived to talk more about the climate benefits of peace.

      1. Whatever it takes to get it upfront in people’s minds, has to be a good thing. And we need to stop using this nefarious euphemism of “defence”. But although the impacts on climate are substantial the other negatives have to be highlighted too. Nuking territories, civilians and even our own soldiers with depleted uranium; turning wealthy countries such as Libya into failed states; polluting and destroying habitats such as the forests of Vietnam and the deliberate targeting of elephants there, which has threatened the very existence of this once common species in that country. These are just some of the many negative effects from this evil, criminal industry that our political leaders throw so much money at.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: