🔗 Share this article

Let's 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 lives in flat, embarrassing denial about how politics works. His latest essay on climate, released recently, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He composes text ignoring political influence, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Central Claim

His main contention is that money is insufficient, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should direct money away from "short-term pollution targets" towards climate "adaptation" 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 government social programs, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and substantial decreases in support money of additional nations. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The selection to enforce it originates with leaders submitting to the preferences of billionaire class.

Available Resources

There are truckloads of money available. Just after Gates published his new missive, research showed that the total wealth of the top ten US fortune holders expanded by hundreds of billions in the past year. That money alone, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is approximately ten times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of the world's money into their pockets? Why can't society reclaim it through appropriate revenue collection? The explanation involves their transformation of economic power into political power. As their wealth increases, the greater their ability to influence government and financial structures to their will, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be found.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for business leaders in Washington DC.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

An obvious relationship appears between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about 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. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by suppressing salaries, increasing housing costs, undermining worker collectives and winning tax and spending cuts, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Investigation Conclusions

A significant investigation in academic political journals, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from most people. The rich participants surveyed, sharply different from average people, saw budget deficits as the most important 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 significantly less prone to accept that unemployed people merit reasonable生活质量, or that there should be increased oversight of energy firms, financial institutions and insurance providers. They were fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Policy Impact

Which perspectives dominate? The small elite or the vast population? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than average citizens. What about currently? The current reality seems obvious.

Omissions and Assumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. If Gates included this, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than fossil fuels. But The former president and comparable figures are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

Partly as a result, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This might explain, 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, in fact, increased.

Mental Aspects

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that acquiring huge amounts of money is like taking a blow to the head. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Strategic Considerations

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. 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. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

Gates has always been completely WRONG on this topic, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, repeating traditional energy arguments (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) significantly following their debunking. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Additional Tough Truths

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and quickly deteriorate, the effects on human life, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (a subject he consistently omits), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, 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, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest