🔗 Share this article

Let's address the central dilemma: Bill Gates denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now recognizes environmental science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about the realities of power. His latest essay on climate, released recently, approaches climate change without political context. He composes text ignoring political influence, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Central Claim

His key position states that financial resources are scarce, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should redirect resources from "short-term pollution targets" 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 government social programs, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and severe reductions in assistance funding of other countries. Austerity is a political choice. The choice to implement it comes from governments bowing to the wishes of extremely wealthy individuals.

Current Funds

Substantial financial resources are present. Just after Gates published his new missive, research showed that the total wealth of the top ten US fortune holders increased by nearly $700 billion in the past year. These funds independently, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is almost 10 times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of global wealth into personal accounts? Why can't society reclaim it through appropriate revenue collection? 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, ensuring that they become richer still. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate action and poverty relief could be located.

'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

A clear connection exists 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 percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by keeping pay low, driving up rental prices, weakening labor organizations and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Investigation Conclusions

A notable research 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 great majority. The rich participants surveyed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, viewed government debt as paramount 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 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 fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Policy Impact

So whose views prevail? 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 average citizens. How about today? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Omissions and Assumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. 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. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than fossil fuels. But Trump and like-minded politicians are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

To some degree because of this, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This could be why, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, in fact, increased.

Psychological Factors

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. 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 profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that acquiring huge amounts of money is like taking a blow to the head. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Tactical Elements

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump certainly took it that way: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on the issue, 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) significantly following their debunking. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Further Difficult Realities

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and quickly deteriorate, the consequences for people, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, 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, while it might sound rational, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest