🔗 Share this article

Let's start with the core issue: Bill Gates denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about how politics works. His new piece on climate, published last week, approaches climate change without political context. He composes text ignoring political influence, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Primary Argument

His main contention is 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 investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but this isn't due to universal principles, some implacable truth about human society. This results from wealthy interests attacking on government social programs, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and substantial decreases in support money of additional nations. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The decision to impose it is driven by governments bowing to the wishes of extremely wealthy individuals.

Existing Wealth

There are truckloads of money available. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, research showed that the total wealth of the 10 richest US billionaires expanded by hundreds of billions over the last year. These funds independently, 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 economic resources into private hands? Why can't society reclaim it through proper tax policies? The solution lies in their conversion of financial influence into governmental control. The richer they become, the more they can bend the state and economic system to their desires, securing ongoing financial growth. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate action and poverty relief could be located.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for corporate executives in the capital.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

An obvious relationship appears between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by holding down wages, driving up rental prices, weakening labor organizations and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Research Findings

A remarkable study in academic political journals, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the great majority. The multimillionaires it interviewed, 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 welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, and much less inclined to think 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 small elite or the vast population? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than regular individuals. What about currently? The current reality seems obvious.

Omissions and Assumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than traditional energy sources. But Trump and similar demagogues are employing every method to hinder the change.

To some degree because of this, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This could be why, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, truly expanded.

Mental Aspects

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. While the ultra-rich are notoriously hard to study, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Tactical Elements

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

Gates has always been completely WRONG on the issue, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, echoing petroleum industry talking points (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) significantly following their debunking. He has spread confusion and misinformation, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the objective of Sri Lanka's catastrophic restriction on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

More Challenging Facts

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and quickly deteriorate, the effects on human life, let alone the survival of other life forms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but through sudden changes of state, the possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. His position that all resources should follow existing data-driven assessments of human betterment, even if it seems logical, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest