🔗 Share this article

LWe must address the central dilemma: Bill Gates is a politics denier. Though he came to it late, he now recognizes environmental science. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about how politics works. His new piece on climate, released recently, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Central Claim

His main contention is that money is insufficient, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should shift funding from "short-term pollution targets" towards environmental adjustment and spending on poverty and disease.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but this isn't due to universal principles, an unavoidable reality of communities. This results from wealthy interests attacking on public welfare investments, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of other countries. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The choice to implement it comes from authorities yielding to the demands of the ultra-rich.

Current Funds

Substantial financial resources are present. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, 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 increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is approximately ten times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of the world's money into their pockets? What prevents redistribution through proper tax policies? The explanation involves their transformation of financial influence into governmental control. The richer they become, the greater their ability to influence political and economic frameworks to their desires, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both climate action and poverty relief could be found.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for industry figures in Washington.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

A clear connection exists between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about 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 holding down wages, driving up rental prices, weakening labor organizations and winning tax and spending cuts, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Research Findings

A remarkable study in academic political journals, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from the great majority. The multimillionaires it interviewed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were much more inclined to demand that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, and much less inclined to think that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be increased oversight of energy firms, financial institutions and insurance providers. They were fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Political Influence

Which perspectives dominate? 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

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: 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: 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 traditional energy sources. But Trump and similar demagogues are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

Partly as a result, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This could be why, despite Gates's claim that his foundation had divested all its "direct holdings in oil and gas companies" in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, in fact, increased.

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. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Political Calculations

But perhaps there's also calculation here: 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. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on this topic, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, reciting fossil fuel claims (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) well after their refutation. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Additional Tough Truths

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and rapidly fail, the effects on human life, not to mention the existence of other species (a subject he consistently omits), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, 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, even if it seems logical, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest