🔗 Share this article

Let's start with the core issue: Bill Gates is a politics denier. While he was slow to accept it, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about how politics works. His new piece on climate, shared days ago, approaches climate change without political context. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

The Main Contention

His key position states that funds are very limited, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should redirect resources from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards environmental adjustment and spending on poverty and disease.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but this isn't due to universal principles, an unchangeable fact of civilization. The reason is elite influence has declared war on public welfare investments, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of various states. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The selection to enforce it originates with authorities yielding to the demands of the ultra-rich.

Existing Wealth

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of America's wealthiest ten individuals expanded by hundreds of billions over the last year. This amount by itself, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is nearly tenfold the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of the world's money into their pockets? And why can't we get it back through appropriate revenue collection? The explanation involves their transformation of economic power into political power. As their wealth increases, the more they can bend the state and economic system to their preferences, ensuring that they become richer still. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be found.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' The billionaire alongside Trump at an exclusive meal for corporate executives in the capital.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

An obvious relationship appears between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the riches he overlooks. In the US, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by keeping pay low, racking up rents, undermining worker collectives and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Research Findings

A notable research in political science publications, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from the great majority. The wealthy respondents in the study, sharply different from average people, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were significantly more prone to argue that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, 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.

Governmental Access

So whose views prevail? 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 average citizens. How about today? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Omissions and Assumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. If Gates included this, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: 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 traditional energy sources. But Trump and like-minded politicians are employing every method to hinder the change.

To some degree because of this, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. 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, actually grown.

Mental Aspects

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. Even though billionaires present research challenges, 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. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Tactical Elements

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. Trump certainly took it that way: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." Gates has confessed his total mistake. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on the issue, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, reciting fossil fuel claims (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) significantly following their debunking. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

More Challenging Facts

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 (an issue he regularly neglects), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but through rapid shifts, the possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. His claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, while it might sound rational, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest