🔗 Share this article

Let's start with the core issue: Bill Gates is a politics denier. While he was slow to accept it, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about political realities. His new piece on climate, published last week, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

The Main Contention

His primary argument suggests that money is insufficient, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should direct money away from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards environmental adjustment and spending on poverty and disease.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unchangeable fact of civilization. The reason is elite influence has declared war on benign state spending, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of various states. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The decision to impose it is driven by leaders submitting to the preferences of the ultra-rich.

Available Resources

There are truckloads of money available. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, research showed that the total wealth of the top ten US fortune holders grew by $698bn in the past year. This amount by itself, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is approximately ten times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of the world's money into their pockets? And why can't we get it back through proper tax policies? The solution lies in their conversion of wealth into policy-making authority. As their wealth increases, the more they can bend government and financial structures to their preferences, ensuring that they become richer still. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both environmental measures and economic assistance 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.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

A clear connection exists between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the riches he overlooks. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by suppressing salaries, racking up rents, undermining worker collectives and winning tax and spending cuts, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

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 the general population. The wealthy respondents in the study, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were much more inclined to demand that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, 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 strongly against wealth redistribution.

Political Influence

What opinions win out? The small elite or the vast population? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than average citizens. What about currently? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

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: decreasing expenses for eco-friendly innovations automatically creates ecological advancement. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than fossil fuels. 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 might explain, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, truly expanded.

Mental Aspects

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. Even though billionaires present research challenges, 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. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Strategic Considerations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: 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." The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has always been completely WRONG on this topic, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. 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 purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

More Challenging Facts

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 suddenly collapse, the consequences for people, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but through sudden changes of state, 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, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest