🔗 Share this article

Let's begin with the fundamental problem: Bill Gates is a politics denier. 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, shared days ago, approaches climate change without political context. He composes text ignoring political influence, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Primary Argument

His main contention is that financial resources are scarce, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should shift funding from "near-term emissions goals" towards climate resilience and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, 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, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of other countries. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The selection to enforce it originates with authorities yielding to the demands of billionaire class.

Current Funds

There are truckloads of money available. Just after Gates published his new missive, data indicated that the combined assets of the top ten US fortune holders grew by $698bn in the past year. These funds independently, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is nearly tenfold the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of economic resources into private hands? Why can't society reclaim it through effective taxation? The explanation involves their transformation of financial influence into governmental control. As their wealth increases, the stronger their capacity to shape government and financial structures to their desires, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be located.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for corporate executives in the capital.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

An obvious relationship appears between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by keeping pay low, driving up rental prices, weakening labor organizations and winning tax and spending cuts, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Research Findings

A significant investigation in political science publications, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from most people. The rich participants surveyed, sharply different from average people, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were far more likely to insist that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, 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.

Political Influence

What opinions win out? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than average citizens. And now? The current reality seems obvious.

Omissions and Assumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: decreasing expenses for eco-friendly innovations automatically creates ecological advancement. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than conventional power. But Trump and like-minded politicians are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

In part due to these factors, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. 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 fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, in fact, increased.

Mental Aspects

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. Even though billionaires present research challenges, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Tactical Elements

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump certainly took it that way: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." Gates has confessed his total mistake. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on the issue, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, repeating traditional energy arguments (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, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

More Challenging Facts

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and rapidly fail, 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. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but through sudden changes of state, 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, although it may appear reasonable, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest