🔗 Share this article

LWe must begin with the fundamental problem: The Microsoft founder is a politics denier. Though he came to it late, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about the realities of power. His latest essay on climate, published last week, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Primary Argument

His primary argument suggests that money is insufficient, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should direct money away from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate resilience and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unchangeable fact of civilization. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on benign state spending, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and severe reductions in assistance funding of various states. Austerity is a political choice. The choice to implement it comes from leaders submitting to the preferences of billionaire class.

Available Resources

Substantial financial resources are present. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, research showed that the total wealth of America's wealthiest ten individuals increased by nearly $700 billion over the last year. This amount by itself, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is approximately ten times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of economic resources into private hands? Why can't society reclaim it through appropriate revenue collection? The answer is their translation of economic power into political power. With growing fortunes, the stronger their capacity to shape government and financial structures to their preferences, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be identified.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for corporate executives in the capital.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

An obvious relationship appears between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by suppressing salaries, racking up rents, undermining worker collectives and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Investigation Conclusions

A significant investigation 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 climate breakdown as the least. They were significantly more prone to argue that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and far less likely to believe that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Governmental Access

So whose views prevail? The small elite or the vast population? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than ordinary people. What about currently? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. If Gates included this, he'd have to admit that another key premise is questionable: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than fossil fuels. But Trump and similar demagogues are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

Partly as a result, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This could be why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, truly expanded.

Psychological Factors

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. Even though billionaires present research challenges, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Strategic Considerations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump certainly took it that way: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has historically been mistaken on this topic, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, reciting fossil fuel claims (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) well after their refutation. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Additional Tough Truths

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and suddenly collapse, the impact on humanity, not to mention the existence of other species (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but via abrupt transitions, the conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. His claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, even if it seems logical, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest