🔗 Share this article

Let's address the central dilemma: Bill Gates denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about the realities of power. His latest essay on climate, shared days ago, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and no such thing as billionaires.

Primary Argument

His key position states that financial resources are scarce, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should redirect resources from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate "adaptation" and spending on poverty and disease.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unavoidable reality of communities. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on government social programs, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and substantial decreases in support money of various states. Austerity is a political choice. The decision to impose it is driven by authorities yielding to the demands of the ultra-rich.

Available Resources

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Just after Gates published his new missive, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the 10 richest US billionaires increased by nearly $700 billion during the previous twelve months. These funds independently, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is approximately ten times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of global wealth into personal accounts? And why can't we get it back through effective taxation? The explanation involves their transformation of wealth into policy-making authority. The richer they become, the stronger their capacity to shape government and financial structures to their preferences, ensuring that they become richer still. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources 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 industry figures in Washington.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

A clear connection exists between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the riches he overlooks. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by keeping pay low, driving up rental prices, undermining worker collectives and winning tax and spending cuts, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Study Results

A significant investigation in Perspectives on Politics, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from most people. The multimillionaires it interviewed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were far more likely to insist that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, and much less inclined to think that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Policy Impact

So whose views prevail? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than ordinary people. And now? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. 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 conventional power. But Trump and like-minded politicians are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

To some degree because of this, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This could be why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, in fact, increased.

Mental Aspects

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. 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, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Political Calculations

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump definitely understood it as such: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." Gates has confessed his total mistake. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has always been completely WRONG on climate matters, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, repeating traditional energy arguments (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) well after their refutation. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Additional Tough Truths

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and quickly deteriorate, the consequences for people, let alone the survival of other life forms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but via abrupt transitions, 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, although it may appear reasonable, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest