🔗 Share this article

LWe must address the central dilemma: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. Though he came to it late, he now recognizes environmental science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about political realities. His new piece on climate, shared days ago, approaches climate change without political context. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Primary Argument

His key position states that money is insufficient, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should direct money away 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 unchangeable fact of civilization. The reason is elite influence has declared war on public welfare investments, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of various states. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The decision to impose it is driven by authorities yielding to the demands of the ultra-rich.

Current Funds

Substantial financial resources are present. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the top ten US fortune holders grew by $698bn in the past year. This amount by itself, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is nearly tenfold the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of economic resources into private hands? What prevents redistribution through appropriate revenue collection? The answer is their translation of economic power into political power. The richer they become, the greater their ability to influence government and financial structures to their preferences, securing ongoing financial growth. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be found.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for corporate executives in the capital.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

There's a direct link between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the riches he overlooks. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by suppressing salaries, driving up rental prices, undermining worker collectives and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Study Results

A notable research in academic political journals, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the great majority. The multimillionaires it interviewed, sharply different from average people, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were far more likely to insist that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, and far less likely to believe that unemployed people merit reasonable生活质量, or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Policy Impact

Which perspectives dominate? The tiny minority or the great majority? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than ordinary people. And now? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Omissions and Assumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: decreasing expenses for eco-friendly innovations automatically creates ecological advancement. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than traditional energy sources. But Trump and similar demagogues are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

Partly as a result, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This potentially clarifies why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, actually grown.

Mental Aspects

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": 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. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Strategic Considerations

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump certainly took it that way: "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!!!"

Background Information

Gates has always been completely WRONG on this topic, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, reciting fossil fuel claims (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) well after their refutation. He has spread confusion and misinformation, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Further Difficult Realities

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and rapidly fail, the impact on humanity, 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. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but via abrupt transitions, the conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. His argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, while it might sound rational, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest