News broke last month that Bill Gates’s Breakthrough Energy is shuttering its federal advocacy operations, signaling a retreat from engaging with U.S. policymakers on climate policy. This decision is deeply troubling and represents a misguided approach at a critical moment in the fight against climate change.
Rather than step back from Washington, this is the time to double down on bipartisan engagement, especially with right-of-center stakeholders, to build the durable coalitions necessary for long-term climate success. If Gates truly wants to make a lasting impact on the clean energy transition, disengaging from the political process is the worst thing he could do.
Federal policy is indispensable to scaling up climate solutions. The clean energy transition requires not just private-sector innovation but policy certainty, stable incentives and long-term public investment, all of which are shaped by government action.
Yet Gates’s retreat suggests he either misunderstands the importance of policy engagement or has lost patience with the political process. Although Breakthrough Energy has not offered a clear reason for shutting down its U.S. climate advocacy operations, leaving observers to speculate, the timing and context raise real concerns.
If his move is a simple reallocation of resources to other priorities like global health, that’s one thing. But if it reflects a deliberate abandonment of the federal playing field, that’s both irresponsible and politically naive.
Waiting for the perfect political moment to advance climate policy is not a compelling strategy. Since World War II, U.S. political parties have secured unified control of the White House and Congress an average of just once every 14 years.
If climate action is contingent on Democratic control of Washington, we may not see significant progress again until the mid to late 2030s. Banking on that would be planetary malpractice.
The view that climate progress is possible only under Democratic leadership is widespread in environmental circles. It is also a myth. While it’s true that conservative lawmakers have been historically resistant to climate action, that landscape is changing, and Gates should be leaning into the bright spots, not walking away.
A prime example is the 21 House Republicans who recently sent a letter calling for the preservation of clean energy tax credits, recognizing the economic benefits that these incentives bring to their districts.
Given the slim margins of the House, this cohort represents a wall of defense to preserve the climate wins secured to date. This is a major signal that the politics of clean energy are evolving.
And there’s a clear reason why: Funds mobilized by the Inflation Reduction Act are flowing disproportionately to Republican-led districts, proving that clean energy is not just an urban, blue-state phenomenon — it’s an economic development engine for conservative America.
Climate advocates should seize this moment to build a broader, bipartisan base of support for the energy transition. This matters for the next four years, but also beyond.
The only way to ensure sustained U.S. leadership on decarbonization is by building a durable, broad-based coalition. This necessarily involves support from both parties.
Gates’s decision is particularly disappointing given the broader failure of climate philanthropy to engage outside its own ideological bubble. Too much of the environmental movement is stuck in an echo chamber, failing to fund initiatives that resonate with conservatives and moderates.
In fact, a 2023 analysis published by The Center for Effective Philanthropy found that less than 1 percent of the climate movement’s resources flow to right-of-center climate education, organizing and advocacy.
We only have two major political parties. And yet, amazingly, the environmental movement is investing almost nothing to engage one of those two parties on the greatest challenge of our time.
This imbalance in resource distribution not only leaves conservative communities under-engaged, but also reinforces the false perception that climate change is solely a liberal concern.
When the public conversation around climate change is dominated by liberal voices, organizations, and messaging, it makes it hard to build a big tent. Fortunately, this is also a fixable problem.
To be clear, this is not an argument for blind optimism about the Republican Party’s climate stance. There are still plenty of climate skeptics in positions of power who pose real obstacles to short-term progress.
But the underlying politics of clean energy are shifting in a way that should encourage more, not less, engagement. If we don’t build on this momentum, we risk sliding backward into another decade of gridlock.
Gates has spent years advancing technological breakthroughs in clean energy, and this leadership deserves to be celebrated. But innovation needs policy backing and bipartisan support to succeed. His decision to step back from federal engagement is a mistake that will make the clean energy transition harder, not easier.
Future generations wouldn’t accept retreat as the right answer. Neither should we.
Isabela Valencia is a Bekenstein Climate Fellow at The Alliance for Climate Transition. She is a master’s degree student studying climate policy, finance and philanthropy at the Yale School of the Environment.
