🔗 Share this article

LWe must begin with the fundamental problem: The Microsoft founder is a politics denier. Though he came to it late, he now recognizes environmental science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about how politics works. His recent article on climate, shared days ago, approaches climate change without political context. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Central Claim

His main contention is that money is insufficient, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should redirect resources from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards environmental adjustment and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unavoidable reality of communities. The reason is elite influence has declared war on public welfare investments, leading to the destruction of USAID and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of additional nations. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The decision to impose it is driven by governments bowing to the wishes of the ultra-rich.

Existing Wealth

There are truckloads of money available. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of America's wealthiest ten individuals grew by $698bn during the previous twelve months. This amount by itself, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is nearly tenfold the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate 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 economic power into political power. As their wealth increases, the stronger their capacity to shape government and financial structures to their preferences, ensuring that they become richer still. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be located.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for business leaders in Washington DC.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

A clear connection exists between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by holding down wages, driving up rental prices, busting trade unions and winning tax and spending cuts, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Investigation Conclusions

A significant investigation in political science publications, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from most people. The wealthy respondents in the study, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were significantly more prone to argue that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, 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 fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Governmental Access

What opinions win out? 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 average citizens. And now? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. Should the billionaire address this, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than fossil fuels. But Trump and like-minded politicians are employing every method to hinder the change.

In part due to these factors, 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 oil and gas financial assets have, in fact, increased.

Psychological Factors

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. 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, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Strategic Considerations

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Gates has confessed his total mistake. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

Gates has historically been mistaken on climate matters, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, echoing petroleum industry talking points (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) well after their refutation. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Additional Tough Truths

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and quickly deteriorate, the impact on humanity, not to mention the existence of other species (a subject he consistently omits), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, but through sudden changes of state, the conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. His argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, even if it seems logical, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest