🔗 Share this article

Let's start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. Though he came to it late, he now recognizes environmental science. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about political realities. His new piece on climate, published last week, 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.

Primary Argument

His key position states that money is insufficient, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should direct money away from "near-term emissions goals" towards climate resilience and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but that's not because of some natural law, some implacable truth about human society. The reason is elite influence has declared war on benign state spending, leading to the destruction of USAID and substantial decreases in support money of other countries. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The choice to implement it comes from authorities yielding to the demands of the ultra-rich.

Current Funds

Substantial financial resources are present. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, research showed that the total wealth of America's wealthiest ten individuals grew by $698bn during the previous twelve months. That money alone, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is almost 10 times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of the world's money into their pockets? What prevents redistribution 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 political and economic frameworks to their desires, securing ongoing financial growth. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be identified.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' The billionaire alongside Trump at an exclusive meal for industry figures in Washington.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

A clear connection exists between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by keeping pay low, racking up rents, undermining worker collectives and winning tax and spending cuts, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Study Results

A remarkable study in Perspectives on Politics, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the great majority. The rich participants surveyed, sharply different from average people, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were far more likely to insist that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and far less likely to believe that the unemployed should have a "decent standard of living", or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Policy Impact

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 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 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 traditional energy sources. But The former president and comparable figures 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, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, actually grown.

Psychological Factors

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": 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 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.

Political Calculations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump certainly took it that way: "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!!!"

Previous Positions

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on this topic, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, repeating traditional energy arguments (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) well after their refutation. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, like the baseless statement in his latest article 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. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and quickly deteriorate, the effects on human life, not to mention the existence of other species (a subject he consistently omits), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. 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 position that all resources should follow existing data-driven assessments of human betterment, although it may appear reasonable, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest