Skip Navigation

News

  • Print
  • Comment
  • | Share

Don't sacrifice health in climate battle, warns Gates

Naomi Antony

26 January 2010 | EN | 中文

Gates: "not spending on health is a bad deal for the environment"

Flickr/World Ecnomic Forum

Spending more on climate change research could put hundreds of thousands of lives at risk by stripping away precious global health funding, Bill Gates has said.

In his 2010 Annual Letter — the second of its kind, released yesterday (25 January) by the Bill &Melinda Gates Foundation — the philanthropist warned that aid budgets may shrink not only because of recession-related shortfalls but because of a shift towards research targeted at dealing with climate change.

He highlighted the climate accord of last year's Copenhagen conference, in which rich countries pledged to give developing countries US$10 billion annually over the next three years, and as much as US$100 billion per year by 2020.

"If just one per cent of the US$100 billion goal came from vaccine funding then 700,000 more children could die from preventable diseases," Gates wrote.

"In the long run, not spending on health is a bad deal for the environment because improvements in health, including voluntary family planning, lead people to have smaller families, which in turn reduces the strain on the environment."

Gates also defended the foundation's decision to not channel resources into tackling climate change and said that private investment in new carbon-free energy technologies is the way forward.

"There's this multi-trillion dollar market and yet the investments in totally new breakthroughs are surprisingly small," he told the Financial Times yesterday, adding that the key to climate change mitigation is finding a carbon-free way of producing electricity that is cheaper than coal.

"There will be a huge market for this and governments should supply large amounts of funding for basic research and development (R&D)… I am surprised that the climate debate hasn't focused more on encouraging R&D since it is critical to getting to zero emissions."

Gates also expressed fears in his letter that rich countries will slash or freeze aid budgets. "Because of budget deficits, there is significant risk that aid budgets will either be cut or not increase much. Many [government deficits as a percentage of GDP] represent unprecedented peacetime deficits," he said.

Gates said that the effectiveness of aid is not well-publicised. "We need to get the successes to be far more visible than they are today."

The letter, which this year focuses on innovation, also details the foundation's activities in childhood disease prevention, the fights against HIV and malaria, and the use of farming techniques for boosting agricultural productivity.

Link to full 2010 Annual Letter

Comments (3)

Tolouse ( Greencore | United States of America )

5 February 2010

Geochemical change and health care are interchangeable concepts. As he aptly states, "improvements in health, including voluntary family planning, lead people to have smaller families, which in turn reduces the strain on the environment." One could just as easily say that geochemical changes that alter hydrological cycles or ocean chemistry will affect food security and human nourishment, thereby straining human health. This is not an either/or situation. They are two big problems we face and we need to commit sufficient resources to address them both. Please let's not get trapped by the logical fallacy of either/or.

rk sarkar ( India )

16 February 2010

World leaders or scientists who are very much worried about climate change can get a lesson form this observation. Nobody thinks climate research is not needed but without nutrition, health, population control no measure is successful in tackling climate change rather climate would be more fragile. It is not appropriate to spend money on publishing more research articles on climate change rather than the rate of actual increase in emmissiosn of greenhouse gas.

Torsten Mandal ( Denmark )

29 March 2010

At least one approach can help against climate change and much of its damages to the poor in the tropics and while counter-acting some major causes of their diseases: Improved low-input establishment and management of soil-and-water conserving contour hedges. It can improve farming (income and nutrition) and reduces rapid surface run-off (drought, flooding, water-born diseases incl. malaria). It also provides wood needed for boiling drinking water and beans, and for making rural homes with more space and less infections. To prevent aids risk behaviour, the neglected fundamentals are rural employment, hope, and stable incomes for poor and women. For research results on direct seeding nitrogen fixing multipurpose contour hedges and recycling wood ash in relation to climate change, Google: Torsten Mandal IOP PDF.

Add your comment

This is your network: share your views on any of our articles by adding your comments.

You need to be signed in to post a comment or to email a consenting comment author. Please sign in or sign up.

All comments are subject to approval and we reserve the right to edit comments containing inappropriate/unsuitable language. SciDev.Net holds copyright for all material posted on the website. Please see terms of use for further details.

All SciDev.Net material is free to reproduce providing that the source and author are appropriately credited. For further details see Creative Commons.

Back to News
To the top