🔗 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 acknowledges climate change facts. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about political realities. His recent article on climate, published last week, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Primary Argument

His key position states that funds are very limited, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should redirect resources from "short-term pollution targets" towards climate resilience and spending on poverty and disease.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but that's not because of some natural law, an unchangeable fact of civilization. The reason is elite influence has declared war on government social programs, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and severe reductions in assistance funding of additional nations. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The selection to enforce it originates with governments bowing to the wishes of the ultra-rich.

Available Resources

There are truckloads of money available. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, research showed that the total wealth of the 10 richest US billionaires expanded by hundreds of billions in the past year. This amount by itself, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is approximately ten times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of the world's money into their pockets? And why can't we get it back through proper tax policies? The answer is their translation of wealth into policy-making authority. With growing fortunes, the stronger their capacity to shape the state and economic system to their will, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about how and where extra money 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 industry figures in Washington.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

A clear connection exists between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the riches he overlooks. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by holding down wages, racking up rents, undermining worker collectives and winning tax and spending cuts, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Research Findings

A notable research 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 multimillionaires it interviewed, completely unlike ordinary citizens, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were significantly more prone to argue that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and much less inclined to think 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.

Policy Impact

Which perspectives dominate? The small elite or the vast population? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than ordinary people. What about currently? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Omissions and Assumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. Should the billionaire address this, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: 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 conventional power. But Trump and similar demagogues are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

To some degree because of this, 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 fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, actually grown.

Psychological Factors

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Tactical Elements

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." Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on the issue, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, echoing petroleum industry talking points (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) long after they've been discredited. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the objective of Sri Lanka's catastrophic restriction on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

More Challenging Facts

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 impact on humanity, not to mention the existence of other species (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. 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 claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, while it might sound rational, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest