🔗 Share this article

Let's address the central dilemma: Bill Gates is a politics denier. Though he came to it late, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about political realities. His recent article on climate, released recently, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Primary Argument

His primary argument suggests that financial resources are scarce, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should shift funding from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards environmental adjustment and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, some implacable truth about human society. The reason is elite influence has declared war on public welfare investments, leading to the destruction of USAID and severe reductions in assistance funding of other countries. Austerity is a political choice. The selection to enforce it originates with authorities yielding to the demands of billionaire class.

Existing Wealth

There are truckloads of money available. Just after Gates published his new missive, data indicated that the combined assets of America's wealthiest ten individuals expanded by hundreds of billions over the last year. This amount by itself, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is nearly tenfold the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of global wealth into personal accounts? What prevents redistribution through effective taxation? The explanation involves their transformation of financial influence into governmental control. As their wealth increases, the more they can bend political and economic frameworks to their will, ensuring that they become richer still. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both climate action and poverty relief could be found.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for corporate executives in the capital.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

A clear connection exists between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the wealth he fails to mention. 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 suppressing salaries, racking up rents, weakening labor organizations and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Research Findings

A significant investigation in Perspectives on Politics, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the general population. The rich participants surveyed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were much more inclined to demand that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, and far less likely to believe 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.

Policy Impact

What opinions win out? 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 average citizens. What about currently? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Omissions and Assumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: 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: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than conventional power. But Trump and similar demagogues are employing every method to hinder the change.

To some degree because of this, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This might explain, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, truly expanded.

Mental Aspects

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that acquiring huge amounts of money is like taking a blow to the head. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Tactical Elements

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has historically been mistaken on climate matters, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, repeating traditional energy arguments (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) 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 chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

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, 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 via abrupt transitions, the potential effects on human welfare are very difficult to forecast. 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