🔗 Share this article

LWe must address the central dilemma: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about how politics works. His latest essay on climate, published last week, approaches climate change without political context. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and no such thing as billionaires.

Primary Argument

His main contention is that money is insufficient, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should shift funding from "near-term emissions goals" towards environmental adjustment 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. The reason is elite influence has declared war on benign state spending, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and severe reductions in assistance funding of other countries. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The choice to implement it comes from leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Available Resources

Substantial financial resources are present. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the top ten US fortune holders grew by $698bn in the past year. These funds independently, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, 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 proper tax policies? The answer is their translation of wealth into policy-making authority. As their wealth increases, the greater their ability to influence government and financial structures to their desires, securing ongoing financial growth. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both climate action and poverty relief could be identified.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' The billionaire alongside Trump at an exclusive meal for business leaders in Washington DC.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

A clear connection exists between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by keeping pay low, increasing housing costs, weakening labor organizations and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Investigation Conclusions

A remarkable study in academic political journals, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the great majority. The rich participants surveyed, completely unlike ordinary citizens, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. 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 more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were fiercely opposed to 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 the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than regular individuals. And now? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Omissions and Assumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. Should the billionaire address 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 fossil fuels. But Trump and similar demagogues are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

Partly as a result, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This might explain, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, in fact, increased.

Mental Aspects

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": 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 acquiring huge amounts of money is like taking a blow to the head. 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. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." 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 climate matters, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, repeating traditional energy arguments (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) significantly following their debunking. He has spread confusion and misinformation, 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.

Further Difficult Realities

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and suddenly collapse, the effects on human life, let alone the survival of other life forms (an issue he regularly neglects), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. 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, although it may appear reasonable, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest