🔗 Share this article

Let's begin with the fundamental problem: Bill Gates is a politics denier. While he was slow to accept it, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about how politics works. His recent article on climate, shared days ago, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He composes text ignoring political influence, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

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 "short-term pollution targets" towards climate resilience and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but that's not because of some natural law, an unavoidable reality of communities. This results from wealthy interests attacking on benign state spending, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and substantial decreases in support money of other countries. Austerity is a political choice. The selection to enforce it originates with authorities yielding to the demands of the ultra-rich.

Current Funds

Substantial financial resources are present. Just after Gates published his new missive, research showed that the total wealth of America's wealthiest ten individuals grew by $698bn 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. What methods enabled such concentration of global wealth into personal accounts? Why can't society reclaim it through proper tax policies? The answer is their translation of financial influence into governmental control. 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 located.

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

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

An obvious relationship appears between the economic hardship Gates professes to address 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. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by holding down wages, driving up rental prices, busting trade unions and winning tax and spending cuts, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Research Findings

A notable research in academic political journals, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the general population. The wealthy respondents in the study, sharply different from average people, viewed government debt as paramount 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 far less likely to believe that the unemployed should have a "decent standard of living", or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Governmental Access

So whose views prevail? The small elite or the vast population? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than ordinary people. How about today? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Of course it helps that wind, solar and other green technologies are becoming radically cheaper than fossil fuels. But Trump and similar demagogues are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

Partly as a result, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This potentially clarifies why, 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.

Mental Aspects

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Political Calculations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. The former president clearly interpreted it this 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!!!"

Previous Positions

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on the issue, 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) long after they've been discredited. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

More Challenging Facts

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and suddenly collapse, the consequences for people, not to mention the existence of other species (an issue he regularly neglects), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but through sudden changes of state, the conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. His claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, although it may appear reasonable, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest