🔗 Share this article

LWe must address the central dilemma: The Microsoft founder is a politics denier. While he was slow to accept it, he now recognizes environmental science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about how politics works. His new piece on climate, released recently, 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.

Central Claim

His key position states that financial resources are scarce, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should shift funding from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards environmental adjustment and spending on poverty and disease.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but this isn't due to universal principles, an unchangeable fact of civilization. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on benign state spending, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and severe reductions in assistance funding of additional nations. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The selection to enforce it originates with authorities yielding to the demands of extremely wealthy individuals.

Existing Wealth

There are truckloads of money available. Just after Gates published his new missive, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of America's wealthiest ten individuals increased by nearly $700 billion 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 global wealth into personal accounts? And why can't we get it back through effective taxation? The explanation involves their transformation of wealth into policy-making authority. As their wealth increases, the greater their ability to influence government and financial structures 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 climate action and poverty relief could be found.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for corporate executives in the capital.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

There's a direct link between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about 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. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by keeping pay low, driving up rental prices, undermining worker collectives and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Research Findings

A remarkable study in Perspectives on Politics, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the general population. The rich participants surveyed, sharply different from average people, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical 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 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

So whose views prevail? The small elite or the vast population? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than regular individuals. And now? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Omissions and Assumptions

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 recognize that an important foundation of his argument is unstable: 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 The former president and comparable figures are employing every method to hinder the change.

Partly as a result, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This might explain, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, actually grown.

Cognitive Considerations

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking 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.

Political Calculations

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." Gates has confessed his total mistake. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has always been completely WRONG on climate matters, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, reciting fossil fuel claims (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) significantly following their debunking. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, like the baseless statement in his latest article 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. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and quickly deteriorate, the consequences for people, let alone the survival of other life forms (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 via abrupt transitions, the possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. His argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, even if it seems logical, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest