🔗 Share this article

Let's start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. While he was slow to accept it, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about the realities of power. His latest essay on climate, released recently, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

The Main Contention

His primary argument suggests that funds are very limited, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should direct money away from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards environmental adjustment and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but that's not because of some natural law, an unavoidable reality of communities. The reason is elite influence has declared war on public welfare investments, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of additional nations. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The decision to impose it is driven by leaders submitting to the preferences 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 over the last year. These funds independently, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is approximately ten times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of global wealth into personal accounts? What prevents redistribution through appropriate revenue collection? The answer is their translation of economic power into political power. With growing fortunes, the stronger their capacity to shape political and economic frameworks to their preferences, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both climate action and poverty relief could be found.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for corporate executives in the capital.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

An obvious relationship appears between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the riches he overlooks. 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 holding down wages, driving up rental prices, busting trade unions and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Research Findings

A notable research in political science publications, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from most people. The wealthy respondents in the study, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, saw budget deficits as the most important 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 significantly less prone to accept that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Policy Impact

Which perspectives dominate? The tiny minority or the great majority? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than regular individuals. What about currently? The current reality seems obvious.

Omissions and Assumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: 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: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than fossil fuels. But Trump and like-minded politicians are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

To some degree because of this, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This could be why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, truly expanded.

Cognitive Considerations

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. 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. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. While the ultra-rich are notoriously hard to study, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Tactical Elements

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. 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!!!"

Historical Context

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on climate matters, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, reciting fossil fuel claims (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) significantly following their debunking. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

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 impact on humanity, let alone the survival of other life forms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, 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, although it may appear reasonable, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest