What he’s right about is decreasing the “Green premium” (and he does acknowledges that the “premium” is already negative in many sectors, like renewable electricity production).

As you said, where I think he misses the mark, by a lot, is the risk of a false dichotomy between climate mitigation and addressing other causes of human suffering. I understand why people are wary of this framing—it has been increasingly co-opted in bad faith by fossil fuel interests.

I agree—the memo was filled with nuance and solutions discussion not captured in the news headlines. It’s easy to reduce it to “Bill Gates says climate change isn’t important after all”—he even anticipates this response and explicitly says it IS important (in bold text!)

@katehanneman.bsky.social @ucalgary.bsky.social @ucalgarymed.bsky.social @abhealthservices.bsky.social @utoronto.ca @imagingtoronto.bsky.social @caradiologists.bsky.social

Sources 🔎
[1] European Cyclists’ Federation + U.S. DOE
[2] David MacKay, Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air
[3] IEA + UITP benchmarks - assuming average occupancy of rail cars
[4] U.S. EPA - assumes single occupant
[5] U.S. DOE - assumes single occupant

It’s true we can’t solve climate change without big emitters like China taking action.

But it’s equally true we can’t solve it without smaller emitters—especially wealthy ones like Canada—doing their part.

We’re not “too small to matter.” If everyone thought that way, we’d never get anywhere.

4️⃣ 𝗔𝗻𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆—𝗻𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝘀𝗶𝘇𝗲—𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲.

This isn’t just feel-good symbolism. It pressures other to follow.

🇳🇴 Take Norway: 0.1% of global emissions. But >80% of new cars EVs sends a powerful message: If a northern petrostate can, hard for other nations to argue its “not feasible”.

3️⃣ 𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆.

CO₂ lingers for decades, continuing to warm the planet. Many wealthy “<2%” nations have a higher share of 𝘤𝘶𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 emissions.

Wealthy nations built their wealth by burning fossil fuels—now they have a responsibility to invest in clean energy.

☀️ Solar cost has dropped 99.8% since the 1970s—90% in the last decade alone.

The driving force behind this? Increased deployment and economies of scale.

So Canada’s solar does more than reduce domestic emissions—it send a signal to global markets, encouraging investment in solar elsewhere.

2️⃣ 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱.

The “we’re negligible” argument assumes only domestic emissions count, which isn’t the case. Global markets and politics are connected.

When countries adopt clean tech, costs go down worldwide, shaping 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦’𝘴 emissions.

If every <2% emitter country—particularly wealthy ones—shrugged and said “we’re too small to make a difference,” the biggest share of emissions would remain unaddressed.

🗳️ It’s like voting: one ballot rarely decides an election. But if everyone thinks “my vote doesn’t matter,” democracy collapses.

1️⃣ 𝗜𝗳 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 “𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲” 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲.

Only 6 countries on Earth have a >2% share of emissions.

𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 emits <2% and might consider themselves to be “negligible”. But together, these “small” emitters make up 36% of global CO₂—more than China.

Lol it is and it seemed so counterintuitive I just did a second look and realized I misread the graph axes 🤦‍♂️

♻️ People 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 the benefits of recycling & efficient appliances. ✈️ They 𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 the massive impact of skipping long flights & eating less red meat. This mismatch means effort often goes to low-impact actions while high-impact ones are overlooked.

Some context: www.nationalobserver.com/2025/08/25/n...

It seems the “conspiracy theorist” is one of the Grok “personalities” you can select, which likely led to the response featured in the video. Still quite alarming nonetheless