🔗 Share this article

LWe must start with the core issue: Bill Gates is a politics denier. Though he came to it late, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about how politics works. His latest essay on climate, published last week, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He composes text ignoring political influence, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

The Main Contention

His key position states that funds are very limited, so the representatives at the environmental conference 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, some implacable truth about human society. This results from wealthy interests attacking on public welfare investments, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and substantial decreases in support money of additional nations. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The decision to impose it is driven by leaders submitting to the preferences of billionaire class.

Existing Wealth

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, research showed that the total wealth of America's wealthiest ten individuals expanded by hundreds of billions over the last year. That money alone, 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 effective taxation? The solution lies in their conversion of economic power into political power. As their wealth increases, the more they can bend the state and economic system to their desires, securing ongoing financial growth. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be found.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump.' The billionaire alongside Trump at an exclusive meal for business leaders in Washington DC.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

There's a direct link between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the riches he overlooks. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by keeping pay low, increasing housing costs, undermining worker collectives and winning tax and spending cuts, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Research Findings

A remarkable study in political science publications, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the great majority. The multimillionaires it interviewed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were much more inclined to demand 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 fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Policy Impact

What opinions win out? The small elite or the vast population? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than regular individuals. How about today? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. Should the billionaire address this, he'd have to recognize that an important foundation of his argument is unstable: reductions in the cost of new green technologies lead inexorably to environmental progress. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly 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 could be why, despite Gates's claim that his foundation had divested all its "direct holdings in oil and gas companies" in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, truly expanded.

Mental Aspects

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Even though billionaires present research challenges, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Tactical Elements

But perhaps there's also calculation here: 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 demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has historically been mistaken on this topic, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, echoing petroleum industry talking points (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) well after their refutation. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Further Difficult Realities

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and rapidly fail, the consequences for people, let alone the survival of other life forms (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 potential effects on human welfare are very difficult to forecast. His claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, while it might sound rational, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest