Arun Maira: Bill Gates has changed how he thinks climate change should be tackled—Here’s what’s different

This places Gates closer to the US president’s position than before, but they differ on what those other problems are and whether to focus only on the US or the whole world.

In essence, there are five fundamental flaws with the present top-down, scientific (and principally economic) approach to solving global systemic problems:

One, GDP cannot measure the health of a nation: A nation is a complex self-adaptive system composed of three such systems: its natural environment, its human society and its economy.

GDP is a measure of only economic growth. Its impact on the health of the other two complex systems, which are essential for sustainable GDP growth, are not reflected accurately (or even at all) in national economic accounts. Growth that does not create more employment and raise incomes adequately at the lower half of the pyramid weakens the economy’s foundations.

Growth that consumes resources from the natural environment faster than the environment can renew itself soon runs out of resources to feed GDP growth.

Two, one gauge is never sufficient for measuring the health of any complex system: The performance of a car cannot be measured only by a speedometer. It is unwise to press the accelerator for speed without an eye kept on the fuel level (condition of the natural environment) and on the revolutions-per-minute needle for signs of engine over-heating (the political condition of society). Growth will stop if the accelerator is pressed too hard.

Similarly, environmental health cannot be gauged only by a measure of its temperature rise. Many parts of the world are already running out of water resources and their soil is becoming unproductive even before human life is impacted by global warming. An eye must be kept on groundwater levels and the soil’s natural fertility too while tracking the rise of global temperatures.

All essential parts of complex systems must be managed sustainably and together for the whole system to remain healthy. The average health of all cannot be a good measure of the whole system’s health. A patient whose cardiovascular and digestive systems are operating at 100% but brain system has fallen to 0% is not 66.7% alive (the average of the three). The patient has died.

Three, livelihood quality is a better measure of well-being than GDP per capita: The McKinsey Global Institute produced a detailed map of ground realities in its 2022 report, Pixels of Progress: A Granular Look at Human Development Around the World. It divides the world into 40,000 micro-regions and uses advanced statistical techniques to zoom in and examine the actual progress of human life on the ground in a way that statistical averages at the country level and GDP cannot reveal.

The report concludes that “the growth of GDP per capita explains only 20% of the progress on the ground. The remaining 80% is local and specific." Though GDP growth matters, it matters much less than economists would have us believe.

Gates admits that the quality of livelihoods would be a better goal for the global solutions we urgently require than increasing the pace of GDP growth and reducing emissions. He also admits that well-being is subjective, and that it depends on many parameters. Therefore, it is difficult to measure well-being with a single universal metric.

Four, top-down scientific solutions, on scale, are not the answer to global systemic problems: Climate change and environmental degradation are not the only problems that need new solutions. The UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent a range of global problems that must be solved urgently. Sustainable livelihoods must be provided; accessibility and affordability of health and education must be improved; incomes must increase equitably; governance must be improved; and all of these together.

These problems are present everywhere, but not in the same form. Environmental degradation is not happening the same way in Kerala, Rajasthan, the Himalayas and Florida, though it is happening almost everywhere. Similarly, inequality is a common problem, but it does not take the same form in the US, China, Bihar and Kerala.

Calculations reveal that even if only seven of the total 17 SDGs require urgent attention anywhere, 94 million different solutions will be required to fit all situations around the world appropriately.

Clearly, one-size solutions on scale for any of the 17 SDGs cannot be applicable everywhere. Moreover, since many problems must be solved together, and all in context-specific ways, we need local system solutions cooperatively developed and implemented by communities.

Five, global governance needs paradigm shifts: Gates admits that these are required in the way global problems are being solved. In essence, a systems approach is required, not a siloed scientific approach. We need local system solutions developed and owned by communities for global systemic problems, not top-down universal solutions designed and imposed by global experts.

Paradigm shifts are difficult because these are resisted by those vested in the established approach; they usually begin at the periphery, driven by those with the least power under the extant paradigm . Movements for change gain strength when the powerless join hands for a new way out.

Gates has been visibly vested in the top-down approach to solving global problems, as seen in his record of philanthropy. He has made enormous contributions to develop and promote vaccines as universal solutions to health problems, for example. Therefore, when he admits that we need a different way, the world must take notice.

The author is the author of ‘Reimagining India’s Democracy: The Road to a More Equitable Society’