🔗 Share this article

Let's start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about political realities. His latest essay on climate, published last week, approaches climate change without political context. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Central Claim

His primary argument suggests that money is insufficient, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should shift funding from "near-term emissions goals" towards environmental adjustment and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but this isn't due to universal principles, an unavoidable reality of communities. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on benign state spending, leading to the destruction of USAID and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of other countries. Austerity is a political choice. The decision to impose it is driven by authorities yielding to the demands of billionaire class.

Available Resources

There are truckloads of money available. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, research showed that the total wealth of the 10 richest US billionaires grew by $698bn in the past year. These funds independently, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is almost 10 times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of the world's money into their pockets? And why can't we get it back through proper tax policies? The explanation involves their transformation of financial influence into governmental control. The richer they become, the more they can bend political and economic frameworks to their preferences, ensuring that they become richer still. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be identified.

'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 business leaders in Washington DC.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

There's a direct link between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by holding down wages, increasing housing costs, weakening labor organizations and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Investigation Conclusions

A significant investigation in Perspectives on Politics, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, 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 ecological crisis as insignificant. 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 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 strongly against wealth redistribution.

Governmental Access

Which perspectives dominate? The small elite or the vast population? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than regular individuals. And now? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Omissions and Assumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. If Gates included 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 traditional energy sources. But Trump and similar demagogues are employing every method to hinder the change.

To some degree because of this, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This potentially clarifies why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, truly expanded.

Cognitive Considerations

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Even though billionaires present research challenges, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

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." Gates has confessed his total mistake. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

Gates has historically been mistaken on the issue, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, 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 propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the objective of Sri Lanka's catastrophic restriction on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Further Difficult Realities

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and rapidly fail, the consequences for people, not to mention the existence of other species (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), 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 argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, even if it seems logical, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest