🔗 Share this article

Let's begin with the fundamental problem: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. While he was slow to accept it, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about how politics works. His latest essay on climate, released recently, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and no such thing as billionaires.

Primary Argument

His primary argument suggests that funds are very limited, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should shift funding from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards environmental adjustment and spending on poverty and disease.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unchangeable fact of civilization. The reason is elite influence has declared war on government social programs, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and severe reductions in assistance funding of additional nations. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The selection to enforce it originates with leaders submitting to the preferences of billionaire class.

Available Resources

There are truckloads of money available. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, research showed that the total wealth of America's wealthiest ten individuals grew by $698bn over the last year. That money alone, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is almost 10 times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of global wealth into personal accounts? And why can't we get it back through proper tax policies? The answer is their translation of economic power into political power. The richer they become, the stronger their capacity to shape the state and economic system to their will, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be identified.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for business leaders in Washington DC.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

There's a direct link 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 portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by suppressing salaries, driving up rental prices, weakening labor organizations and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Research Findings

A significant investigation 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, sharply different from average people, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were significantly more prone to argue 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 increased oversight of energy firms, financial institutions and insurance providers. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Governmental Access

What opinions win out? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than regular individuals. How about today? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. Were Gates to do so, 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 traditional energy sources. But The former president and comparable figures are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

To some degree because of this, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This potentially clarifies why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, actually grown.

Cognitive Considerations

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. While the ultra-rich are notoriously hard to study, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Tactical Elements

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump certainly took it that way: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has always been completely WRONG on this topic, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, repeating traditional energy arguments (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 synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Further Difficult Realities

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and rapidly fail, the consequences for people, let alone the survival of other life forms (a subject he consistently omits), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, but through rapid shifts, the possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. His position that all resources should follow existing data-driven assessments of human betterment, while it might sound rational, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest