🔗 Share this article

LWe must start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder is a politics denier. While he was slow to accept it, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about the realities of power. His recent article on climate, published last week, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

The Main Contention

His main contention is that funds are very limited, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should direct money away from "near-term emissions goals" towards climate resilience and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but that's not because of some natural law, an unavoidable reality of communities. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on benign state spending, leading to the destruction of USAID and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of other countries. Austerity is a political choice. The choice to implement it comes from leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Current Funds

There are truckloads of money available. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of America's wealthiest ten individuals grew by $698bn in the past year. This amount by itself, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is almost 10 times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of the world's money into their pockets? Why can't society reclaim it through proper tax policies? The solution lies in their conversion of financial influence into governmental control. With growing fortunes, the more they can bend government and financial structures to their will, securing ongoing financial growth. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be identified.

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

Wealth Inequality Relationship

A clear connection exists between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, 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, busting trade unions and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Research Findings

A significant investigation in political science publications, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the great majority. The multimillionaires it interviewed, completely unlike ordinary citizens, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were far more likely to insist 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 stricter rules for petroleum corporations, banking entities and medical coverage companies. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Political Influence

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. How about today? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. If Gates included this, 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 similar demagogues are employing every method to hinder the change.

Partly as a result, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This potentially clarifies why, despite Gates's claim that his foundation had divested all its "direct holdings in oil and gas companies" in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, truly expanded.

Mental Aspects

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Even though billionaires present research challenges, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Strategic Considerations

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "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!!!"

Historical Context

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on climate matters, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, echoing petroleum industry talking points (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) 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 artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

Further Difficult Realities

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and quickly deteriorate, the impact on humanity, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, but through sudden changes of state, 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