🔗 Share this article

Let's begin with the fundamental problem: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. While he was slow to accept it, he now recognizes environmental science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about how politics works. His new piece on climate, shared days ago, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He composes text ignoring political influence, and no such thing as billionaires.

Central Claim

His key position states that money is insufficient, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should direct money away from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards environmental adjustment and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, some implacable truth about human society. This results from wealthy interests attacking on government social programs, leading to the destruction of USAID and substantial decreases in support money of other countries. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The decision to impose it is driven by leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Current Funds

There are truckloads of money available. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, research showed that the total wealth of the top ten US fortune holders increased by nearly $700 billion over the last year. That money alone, 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 the world's money into their pockets? Why can't society reclaim it through appropriate revenue collection? The solution lies in their conversion of economic power into political power. As their wealth increases, the stronger their capacity to shape political and economic frameworks to their will, ensuring that they become richer still. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be located.

'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.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

There's a direct link 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 share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. 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, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Investigation Conclusions

A notable research in academic political journals, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the general population. The rich participants surveyed, sharply different from average people, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were far more likely to insist that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, 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 fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Policy Impact

What opinions win out? The tiny minority or the great majority? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, 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: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. If Gates included 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. Of course it helps that wind, solar and other green technologies are becoming radically cheaper than conventional power. But Trump and similar demagogues are employing every method to hinder the change.

In part due to these factors, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This might explain, 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, in fact, increased.

Mental Aspects

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": 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 obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Tactical Elements

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. 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, echoing petroleum industry talking points (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) long after they've been discredited. He has spread confusion and misinformation, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the objective of Sri Lanka's catastrophic restriction on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Further Difficult Realities

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and rapidly fail, the effects on human life, let alone the survival of other life forms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but through rapid shifts, the possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. His argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, even if it seems logical, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest