🔗 Share this article

Let's start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. While he was slow to accept it, he now accepts the realities of climate science. 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.

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 "adaptation" and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unavoidable reality of communities. This results from wealthy interests attacking on public welfare investments, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of additional nations. Austerity is a political choice. The selection to enforce it originates with governments bowing to the wishes of extremely wealthy individuals.

Available Resources

Substantial financial resources are present. Just after Gates published his new missive, research showed that the total wealth of the 10 richest US billionaires expanded by hundreds of billions during the previous twelve months. That money alone, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is almost 10 times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of global wealth into personal accounts? And why can't we get it back through proper tax policies? The answer is their translation of financial influence into governmental control. With growing fortunes, the stronger their capacity to shape political and economic frameworks to their desires, ensuring that they become richer still. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be located.

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

Rich-Poor Dynamic

An obvious relationship appears between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the riches he overlooks. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by holding down wages, driving up rental prices, weakening labor organizations and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Investigation Conclusions

A significant investigation in academic political journals, 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, completely unlike ordinary citizens, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were significantly more prone to argue 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 increased oversight of energy firms, financial institutions and insurance providers. They were vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Governmental Access

Which perspectives dominate? The small elite or the vast population? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than ordinary people. And now? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. Were Gates to do so, 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 traditional energy sources. But Trump and similar demagogues are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

To some degree because of this, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This potentially clarifies why, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, actually grown.

Psychological Factors

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. 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.

Strategic Considerations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: 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 required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on climate matters, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, reciting fossil fuel claims (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) significantly following their debunking. He has spread confusion and misinformation, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

More Challenging Facts

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. 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, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (a subject he consistently omits), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but via abrupt transitions, 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, even if it seems logical, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest