🔗 Share this article

Let's begin with the fundamental problem: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. While he was slow to accept it, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about political realities. His recent article on climate, shared days ago, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Central Claim

His primary argument suggests that funds are very limited, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should shift funding from "near-term emissions goals" towards climate resilience and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but that's not because of some natural law, an unchangeable fact of civilization. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on government social programs, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and severe reductions in assistance funding of other countries. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The decision to impose it is driven by leaders submitting to the preferences of billionaire class.

Current Funds

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Just after Gates published his new missive, data indicated that the combined assets of the 10 richest US billionaires increased by nearly $700 billion in the past year. This amount by itself, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is almost 10 times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of global wealth into personal accounts? And why can't we get it back through proper tax policies? The solution lies in their conversion of economic power into political power. With growing fortunes, the stronger their capacity to shape government and financial structures to their will, 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 located.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump.' The billionaire alongside Trump at an exclusive meal for industry figures in Washington.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

A clear connection exists between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by suppressing salaries, increasing housing costs, undermining worker collectives and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, 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 extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from most people. The rich participants surveyed, sharply different from average people, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were much more inclined to demand that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and significantly less prone to accept that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Governmental Access

What opinions win out? The small elite or the vast population? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than regular individuals. How about today? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Omissions and Assumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. Should the billionaire address this, 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. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than traditional energy sources. But The former president and comparable figures are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

In part due to these factors, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. 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 oil and gas financial assets have, in fact, increased.

Mental Aspects

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. Even though billionaires present research challenges, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Political Calculations

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: 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. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

Gates has always been completely WRONG on the issue, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, reciting fossil fuel claims (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) significantly following their debunking. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Further Difficult Realities

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and rapidly fail, the effects on human life, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (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 argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, while it might sound rational, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest