🔗 Share this article

LWe must address the central dilemma: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. While he was slow to accept it, he now recognizes environmental science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about the realities of power. His latest essay on climate, released recently, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Primary Argument

His key position states that financial resources are scarce, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should redirect resources from "near-term emissions goals" towards climate resilience and spending on poverty and disease.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, some implacable truth about human society. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on public welfare investments, leading to the destruction of USAID and substantial decreases in support money of additional nations. Austerity is a political choice. The choice to implement it comes from leaders submitting to the preferences of billionaire class.

Current Funds

There are truckloads of money available. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, Oxfam revealed that the net worth 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 approximately ten times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of global wealth into personal accounts? Why can't society reclaim it through effective taxation? The explanation involves their transformation of wealth into policy-making authority. With growing fortunes, the greater their ability to influence government and financial structures to their desires, securing ongoing financial growth. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both climate action and poverty relief could be found.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for business leaders in Washington DC.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

There's a direct link between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by keeping pay low, increasing housing costs, undermining worker collectives and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Study Results

A significant investigation in Perspectives on Politics, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from most people. The wealthy respondents in the study, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. 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 increased oversight of energy firms, financial institutions and insurance providers. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Political Influence

What opinions win out? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than average citizens. How about today? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Omissions and Assumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. Were Gates to do so, 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. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than traditional energy sources. But Trump and similar demagogues are employing every method to hinder the change.

Partly as a result, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This might explain, despite Gates's claim that his foundation had divested all its "direct holdings in oil and gas companies" in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, actually grown.

Psychological Factors

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, 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, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Strategic Considerations

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump definitely understood it as such: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

Gates has always been completely WRONG on the issue, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, reciting fossil fuel claims (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) significantly following their debunking. He has spread confusion and misinformation, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Additional Tough Truths

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and rapidly fail, the impact on humanity, let alone the survival of other life forms (an issue he regularly neglects), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but via abrupt transitions, the potential effects on human welfare are very difficult to forecast. His claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, even if it seems logical, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest