🔗 Share this article

Let's start with the core issue: Bill Gates denies political realities. While he was slow to accept it, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about the realities of power. His recent article on climate, published last week, approaches climate change without political context. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and no such thing as billionaires.

Primary Argument

His main contention is that funds are very limited, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should direct money away from "short-term pollution targets" towards environmental adjustment and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but this isn't due to universal principles, an unavoidable reality of communities. The reason is elite influence has declared war on benign state spending, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of additional nations. Austerity is a political choice. The decision to impose it is driven by leaders submitting to the preferences of the ultra-rich.

Existing Wealth

Substantial financial resources are present. Just after Gates published his new missive, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of America's wealthiest ten individuals grew by $698bn over the last year. This amount by itself, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is nearly tenfold the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of global wealth into personal accounts? What prevents redistribution through effective taxation? The answer is their translation of financial influence into governmental control. The richer they become, the more they can bend the state and economic system to their preferences, securing ongoing financial growth. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be found.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' The billionaire alongside Trump at an exclusive meal for business leaders in Washington DC.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

There's a direct link between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by holding down wages, increasing housing costs, undermining worker collectives and winning tax and spending cuts, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Investigation Conclusions

A remarkable study in academic political journals, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the great majority. The wealthy respondents in the study, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were far more likely to insist that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and significantly less prone to accept 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 fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Policy Impact

What opinions win out? The small elite or the vast population? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than average citizens. How about today? The current reality seems obvious.

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. Should the billionaire address this, 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 fossil fuels. But Trump and like-minded politicians are employing every method to hinder the change.

Partly as a result, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This potentially clarifies why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, truly expanded.

Cognitive Considerations

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Political Calculations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "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 climate matters, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, echoing petroleum industry talking points (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) significantly following their debunking. He has spread confusion and misinformation, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

More Challenging Facts

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and rapidly fail, the effects on human life, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (a subject he consistently omits), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, but via abrupt transitions, 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, while it might sound rational, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest