🔗 Share this article

Let's address the central dilemma: Bill Gates denies political realities. While he was slow to accept it, he now recognizes environmental science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about how politics works. His recent article on climate, shared days ago, approaches climate change without political context. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Primary Argument

His main contention is that funds are very limited, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should shift funding from "short-term pollution targets" towards climate "adaptation" and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but this isn't due to universal principles, an unchangeable fact of civilization. The reason is elite influence has declared war on benign state spending, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and substantial decreases in support money of various states. Austerity is a political choice. The selection to enforce it originates with authorities yielding to the demands of extremely wealthy individuals.

Current Funds

Substantial financial resources are present. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the top ten US fortune holders increased by nearly $700 billion in the past year. That money alone, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is approximately ten times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of global wealth into personal accounts? And why can't we get it back through proper tax policies? The explanation involves their transformation of economic power into political power. The richer they become, the greater their ability to influence political and economic frameworks to their desires, ensuring that they become richer still. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be identified.

'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.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

An obvious relationship appears 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 share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by keeping pay low, driving up rental prices, busting trade unions and winning tax and spending cuts, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Research Findings

A remarkable study in Perspectives on Politics, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from most people. 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 much more inclined to demand that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, and significantly less prone to accept that the unemployed should have a "decent standard of living", or that there should be stricter rules for petroleum corporations, banking entities and medical coverage companies. They were vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Policy Impact

Which perspectives dominate? 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 regular individuals. How about today? The current reality seems obvious.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to recognize that an important foundation of his argument is unstable: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than conventional power. But Trump and like-minded politicians are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

To some degree because of this, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This could be why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, in fact, increased.

Cognitive Considerations

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. 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. While the ultra-rich are notoriously hard to study, 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. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Strategic Considerations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump certainly took it that 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, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, reciting fossil fuel claims (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) long after they've been discredited. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Further Difficult Realities

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and quickly deteriorate, the effects on human life, let alone the survival of other life forms (a subject he consistently omits), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, but via abrupt transitions, the conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. His position that all resources should follow existing data-driven assessments of human betterment, while it might sound rational, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest