🔗 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 lives in flat, embarrassing denial about political realities. His recent article on climate, published last week, approaches climate change without political context. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

The Main Contention

His main contention is that financial resources are scarce, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should redirect resources from "near-term emissions goals" towards environmental adjustment and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but this isn't due to universal principles, an unchangeable fact of civilization. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on benign state spending, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and substantial decreases in support money of various states. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The selection to enforce it originates with leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Existing Wealth

Substantial financial resources are present. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, research showed that the total wealth of the top ten US fortune holders increased by nearly $700 billion in the past year. This amount by itself, 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? What prevents redistribution through appropriate revenue collection? The explanation involves their transformation of wealth into policy-making authority. The richer they become, the more they can bend political and economic frameworks to their desires, ensuring that they become richer still. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate action and poverty relief could be identified.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for business leaders in Washington DC.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

An obvious relationship appears between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the fortunes he ignores. 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 holding down wages, racking up rents, busting trade unions and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Study Results

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 wealthy respondents in the study, completely unlike ordinary citizens, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were significantly more prone to argue that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, and far less likely to believe that unemployed people merit reasonable生活质量, or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Political Influence

So whose views prevail? The tiny minority or the great majority? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than regular individuals. How about today? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Omissions and Assumptions

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 admit that another key premise is questionable: decreasing expenses for eco-friendly innovations automatically creates ecological advancement. Of course it helps that wind, solar and other green technologies are becoming radically cheaper than fossil fuels. But Trump and like-minded politicians are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

In part due to these factors, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This could be why, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, actually grown.

Cognitive Considerations

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, 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. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Tactical Elements

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. Trump certainly took it that way: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on climate matters, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, 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 objective of Sri Lanka's catastrophic restriction on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Further Difficult Realities

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 quickly deteriorate, the impact on humanity, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (a subject he consistently omits), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. 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 argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, although it may appear reasonable, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest