🔗 Share this article

LWe must start with the core issue: Bill Gates ignores the role of politics. While he was slow to accept it, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about the realities of power. His new piece on climate, published last week, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

The Main Contention

His primary argument suggests that funds are very limited, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should shift funding from "short-term pollution targets" towards environmental adjustment and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but that's not because of some natural law, an unchangeable fact of civilization. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on public welfare investments, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and substantial decreases in support money of various states. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The decision to impose it is driven by governments bowing to the wishes of billionaire class.

Available Resources

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the top ten US fortune holders increased by nearly $700 billion over the last year. These funds independently, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is almost 10 times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of the world's money into their pockets? And why can't we get it back through appropriate revenue collection? The answer is their translation of wealth into policy-making authority. The richer they become, the stronger their capacity to shape government and financial structures to their preferences, ensuring that they become richer still. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both climate action and poverty relief could be located.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president 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 fortunes he ignores. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by keeping pay low, driving up rental prices, undermining worker collectives and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Investigation Conclusions

A remarkable study in Perspectives on Politics, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the general population. The multimillionaires it interviewed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were significantly more prone to argue that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, and much less inclined to think 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 strongly against wealth redistribution.

Political Influence

What opinions win out? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than regular individuals. And now? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Omissions and Assumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. Should the billionaire address 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 The former president and comparable figures are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

In part due to these factors, 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 oil and gas financial assets have, truly expanded.

Mental Aspects

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, 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, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Strategic Considerations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Gates has confessed his total mistake. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

Gates has always been completely WRONG on this topic, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, reciting fossil fuel claims (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) long after they've been discredited. 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 synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Further Difficult Realities

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and rapidly fail, the consequences for people, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (a subject he consistently omits), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. 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 position that all resources should follow existing data-driven assessments of human betterment, while it might sound rational, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest