🔗 Share this article

Let's begin with the fundamental problem: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now recognizes environmental science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about the realities of power. His new piece on climate, shared days ago, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He composes text ignoring political influence, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Primary Argument

His main contention is that funds are very limited, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should redirect resources from "near-term emissions goals" towards climate resilience and spending on poverty and disease.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but this isn't due to universal principles, some implacable truth about human society. This results from wealthy interests attacking on public welfare investments, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and substantial decreases in support money of other countries. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The decision to impose it is driven by authorities yielding to the demands of billionaire class.

Available Resources

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Just after Gates published his new missive, data indicated that the combined assets 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 nearly tenfold the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of economic resources into private hands? Why can't society reclaim it through effective taxation? 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 desires, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be found.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for business leaders in Washington DC.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

An obvious relationship appears between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the wealth he fails to mention. 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 holding down wages, increasing housing costs, undermining worker collectives and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Study Results

A significant investigation in political science publications, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the general population. The wealthy respondents in the study, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were significantly more prone to argue that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and far less likely to believe that unemployed people merit reasonable生活质量, or that there should be increased oversight of energy firms, financial institutions and insurance providers. They were vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Political Influence

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 average citizens. And now? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. 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. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than fossil fuels. But Trump and like-minded politicians are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

In part due to these factors, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This potentially clarifies why, 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. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. Even though billionaires present research challenges, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Political Calculations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." Gates has confessed his total mistake. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

Gates has always been completely WRONG on the issue, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, repeating traditional energy arguments (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) long after they've been discredited. He has spread confusion and misinformation, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Further Difficult Realities

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning 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. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but via abrupt transitions, the possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. His claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, while it might sound rational, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest