🔗 Share this article

Let's start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder is a politics denier. Though he came to it late, he now recognizes environmental science. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about political realities. His latest essay on climate, released recently, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He composes text ignoring political influence, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

The Main Contention

His key position states that financial resources are scarce, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should direct money away from "short-term pollution targets" towards climate "adaptation" and spending on poverty and disease.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but that's not because of some natural law, an unavoidable reality of communities. This results from wealthy interests attacking on public welfare investments, leading to the destruction of USAID and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of various states. Austerity is a political choice. The decision to impose it is driven by governments bowing to the wishes of extremely wealthy individuals.

Available Resources

There are truckloads of money available. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the top ten US fortune holders expanded by hundreds of billions during the previous twelve months. This amount by itself, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is almost 10 times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of global wealth into personal accounts? And why can't we get it back through proper tax policies? The solution lies in their conversion of financial influence into governmental control. With growing fortunes, the more they can bend government and financial structures to their desires, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both climate action and poverty relief could be located.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for industry figures in Washington.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

A clear connection exists between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the riches he overlooks. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by suppressing salaries, driving up rental prices, busting trade unions and winning tax and spending cuts, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Investigation Conclusions

A remarkable study in Perspectives on Politics, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from most people. The wealthy respondents in the study, completely unlike ordinary citizens, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were far more likely to insist that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and far less likely to believe that the unemployed should have a "decent standard of living", or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Political Influence

What opinions win out? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than ordinary people. What about currently? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Omissions and Assumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to admit that another key premise is questionable: reductions in the cost of new green technologies lead inexorably to environmental progress. Of course it helps that wind, solar and other green technologies are becoming radically cheaper than conventional power. But Trump and like-minded politicians are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

Partly as a result, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This might explain, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, truly expanded.

Cognitive Considerations

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition could suggest that acquiring huge amounts of money is like taking a blow to the head. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Tactical Elements

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has always been completely WRONG on climate matters, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, repeating traditional energy arguments (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) long after they've been discredited. He has spread confusion and misinformation, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Further Difficult Realities

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and rapidly fail, the consequences for people, not to mention the existence of other species (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but through rapid shifts, the potential effects on human welfare are very difficult to forecast. His position that all resources should follow existing data-driven assessments of human betterment, although it may appear reasonable, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest