Here’s a shocking revelation that might make you question everything you thought you knew about philanthropy and climate action: Bill Gates’ charity trust, despite publicly committing to divest from fossil fuels, has actually increased its investments in these very companies. Yes, you read that right. The same trust that pledged to fight climate change is pouring hundreds of millions into the industries driving it. But here’s where it gets even more complicated—and controversial.
Recent filings reveal that in 2024, the Gates Foundation Trust invested a staggering $254 million in fossil fuel giants like Chevron, BP, and Shell. This marks a nine-year high, with a 21% increase since 2016, according to a Guardian analysis. Adjusted for inflation, it’s the largest sum since 2019—the very year Bill Gates claimed to have divested from these companies. So, what’s really going on here?
Let’s take a step back. Bill Gates, the tech mogul and Microsoft co-founder, was once the world’s richest man, a title he held for most of the years between 1995 and 2017. In 2000, alongside his then-wife Melinda, he established the Gates Foundation, now the third-largest charitable organization globally. The foundation tackles critical issues like public health, poverty, education, and climate adaptation. But its approach to climate change has raised eyebrows—and not in a good way.
The issue of divestment first surfaced in 2015 when a global campaign, led by religious leaders, climate activists, students, and other charities, urged major foundations to pull their money out of fossil fuels. The Guardian’s Keep It in the Ground campaign specifically called out the Gates Foundation Trust, demanding it stop funding companies that were actively searching for more coal, oil, and gas—resources that can’t be burned without worsening the climate crisis.
At the time, the trust had a whopping $1.4 billion invested in fossil fuels. Gates later admitted in his 2021 book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, that he understood why the Guardian had targeted him. Yet, he remained skeptical of divestment, arguing it wouldn’t single-handedly stop climate change or help impoverished nations. But here’s the part most people miss: Despite his reservations, the trust did reduce its fossil fuel holdings significantly—from $1.4 billion in 2013 to $260 million in 2015. So, what changed?
Fast forward to 2024, and the trust’s investments in fossil fuel companies are not only back on the rise but reaching record levels. For instance, its holdings in Glencore jumped from $5.7 million in 2015 to $14.1 million in 2024, while BP holdings soared from $8.7 million to $24.2 million. Even Occidental Petroleum saw a dramatic increase, from a mere $23,529 to $7.9 million. Is this a strategic shift, a financial miscalculation, or something else entirely?
Gates himself claimed in 2021 that his decision to divest in 2019 was driven by personal morals, not financial gain. “I don’t want to profit from fossil fuel stocks if it means delaying zero-carbon alternatives,” he wrote. Yet, the trust’s actions tell a different story. By 2024, it had invested $139 million in Inpex, a sevenfold increase from 2020. And it doesn’t stop there—millions more are tied up in companies like BP, Equinor, and Occidental Petroleum, all of which have faced accusations of greenwashing and questionable environmental practices.
Here’s the kicker: In 2023, the companies backed by the Gates Trust emitted more greenhouse gases than Russia, Japan, and Germany combined. And this surge in investment comes at a time when Gates is publicly advocating for a ‘strategic pivot’ away from emissions reduction and toward poverty alleviation. Is this a case of mixed priorities, or is there a deeper strategy at play?
This raises a critical question for all of us: Can we trust philanthropic giants to lead the fight against climate change when their financial actions seem to contradict their words? And if not, who will hold them accountable? Let’s spark a conversation—what do you think? Is the Gates Foundation’s approach justified, or is it time for a radical rethink? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
