🔗 Share this article

LWe must begin with the fundamental problem: Bill Gates denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about the realities of power. His latest essay on climate, published last week, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He composes text ignoring political influence, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

The Main Contention

His primary argument suggests that money is insufficient, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should redirect resources from "near-term emissions goals" towards climate "adaptation" and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unavoidable reality of communities. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on government social programs, leading to the destruction of USAID and severe reductions in assistance funding of additional nations. Austerity is a political choice. The selection to enforce it originates with authorities yielding to the demands of the ultra-rich.

Existing Wealth

There are truckloads of money available. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the 10 richest US billionaires grew by $698bn during the previous twelve months. This amount by itself, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is almost 10 times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of global wealth into personal accounts? What prevents redistribution through appropriate revenue collection? The solution lies in their conversion of financial influence into governmental control. With growing fortunes, the greater their ability to influence political and economic frameworks to their desires, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both climate action and poverty relief could be located.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for industry figures in Washington.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

An obvious relationship appears between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the riches he overlooks. 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 keeping pay low, driving up rental prices, busting trade unions and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Investigation Conclusions

A significant investigation in academic political journals, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from the general population. The rich participants surveyed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were significantly more prone to argue that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and significantly less prone to accept 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 vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Policy Impact

Which perspectives dominate? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, 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.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. If Gates included this, he'd have to recognize that an important foundation of his argument is unstable: 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 traditional energy sources. But Trump and like-minded politicians are employing every method to hinder the change.

To some degree because of this, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. 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.

Cognitive Considerations

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. Even though billionaires present research challenges, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Tactical Elements

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. Trump certainly took it that way: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Gates has confessed his total mistake. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

Gates has historically been mistaken on this topic, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, repeating traditional energy arguments (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) well after their refutation. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

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 rapidly fail, the impact on humanity, not to mention the existence of other species (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but via abrupt transitions, the possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. 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