🔗 Share this article

Let's begin with the fundamental problem: Bill Gates denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about how politics works. His new piece on climate, shared days ago, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and no such thing as billionaires.

The Main Contention

His primary argument suggests that funds are very limited, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should redirect resources from "near-term emissions goals" towards climate "adaptation" and spending on poverty and disease.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but this isn't due to universal principles, some implacable truth about human society. The reason is elite influence has declared war on government social programs, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of other countries. Austerity is a political choice. The decision to impose it is driven by leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Existing Wealth

There are truckloads of money available. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, data indicated that the combined assets of the top ten US fortune holders increased by nearly $700 billion during the previous twelve months. This amount by itself, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is nearly tenfold the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of economic resources into private hands? What prevents redistribution through appropriate revenue collection? The solution lies in their conversion of wealth into policy-making authority. The richer they become, the stronger their capacity to shape the state and economic system 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.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for industry figures in Washington.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

A clear connection exists between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, 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, increasing housing costs, busting trade unions and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Study Results

A notable research in political science publications, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the general population. The multimillionaires it interviewed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, saw budget deficits as the most important 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 fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Governmental Access

What opinions win out? The small elite or the vast population? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than average citizens. And now? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Omissions and Assumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. If Gates included this, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than traditional energy sources. But Trump and like-minded politicians are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

In part due to these factors, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This potentially clarifies why, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, actually grown.

Mental Aspects

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 may actually be unable to conceptualize it. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. While the ultra-rich are notoriously hard to study, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Tactical Elements

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump definitely understood it as such: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

Gates has historically been mistaken on climate matters, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, echoing petroleum industry talking points (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) well after their refutation. He has spread confusion and misinformation, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

More Challenging Facts

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and suddenly collapse, the impact on humanity, let alone the survival of other life forms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but through rapid shifts, the conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. His argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, although it may appear reasonable, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest