🔗 Share this article

LWe must start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder is a politics denier. Though he came to it late, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about how politics works. His latest essay on climate, shared days ago, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

The Main Contention

His main contention is that money is insufficient, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should redirect resources from "near-term emissions goals" towards climate "adaptation" and spending on poverty and disease.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but that's not because of some natural law, an unavoidable reality of communities. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on government social programs, leading to the destruction of USAID and severe reductions in assistance funding of additional nations. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The selection to enforce it originates with governments bowing to the wishes of the ultra-rich.

Available Resources

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Just after Gates published his new missive, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the top ten US fortune holders expanded by hundreds of billions in the past year. These funds independently, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is nearly tenfold the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of the world's money into their pockets? Why can't society reclaim it through appropriate revenue collection? The answer is their translation of economic power into political power. As their wealth increases, the greater their ability to influence political and economic frameworks to their preferences, ensuring that they become richer still. But the philanthropist discusses 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.' Gates photographed with the former president for business leaders in Washington DC.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

An obvious relationship appears between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the riches he overlooks. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, 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, driving up rental prices, weakening labor organizations and winning tax and spending cuts, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Study Results

A notable research in academic political journals, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from the general population. The wealthy respondents in the study, completely unlike ordinary citizens, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were far more likely to insist that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, 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 strongly against wealth redistribution.

Political Influence

So whose views prevail? The small elite or the vast population? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than ordinary people. And now? The current reality seems obvious.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. 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. Of course it helps that wind, solar and other green technologies are becoming radically cheaper than conventional power. But Trump and like-minded politicians are employing every method to hinder the change.

To some degree because of this, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This potentially clarifies why, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, truly expanded.

Mental Aspects

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Even though billionaires present research challenges, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition could suggest that acquiring huge amounts of money is like taking a blow to the head. 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 certainly took it that way: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. 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 (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) significantly following their debunking. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Additional Tough Truths

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and rapidly fail, the impact on humanity, not to mention the existence of other species (an issue he regularly neglects), 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 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