🔗 Share this article

Let's address the central dilemma: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now recognizes environmental science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about how politics works. His new piece on climate, published last week, approaches climate change without political context. He composes text ignoring political influence, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Central Claim

His primary argument suggests that financial resources are scarce, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should direct money away from "near-term emissions goals" towards climate resilience and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but that's not because of some natural law, an unavoidable reality of communities. The reason is elite influence has declared war on government social programs, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of various states. Austerity is a political choice. The decision to impose it is driven by leaders submitting to the preferences of billionaire class.

Existing Wealth

There are truckloads of money available. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, research showed that the total wealth of the top ten US fortune holders expanded by hundreds of billions in the past year. That money alone, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is approximately ten times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of economic resources into private hands? And why can't we get it back through effective taxation? The solution lies in their conversion of financial influence into governmental control. With growing fortunes, the greater their ability to influence government and financial structures to their preferences, ensuring that they become richer still. 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.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for industry figures in Washington.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

There's a direct link between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by suppressing salaries, racking up rents, weakening labor organizations and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Study Results

A remarkable study in Perspectives on Politics, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from the general population. The multimillionaires it interviewed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were significantly more prone to argue that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, and far less likely to believe that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be stricter rules for petroleum corporations, banking entities and medical coverage companies. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Policy Impact

What opinions win out? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than ordinary people. How about today? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. Should the billionaire address this, he'd have to recognize that an important foundation of his argument is unstable: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than fossil fuels. But The former president and comparable figures are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

To some degree because of this, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This could be why, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, in fact, increased.

Cognitive Considerations

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Tactical Elements

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

Gates has always been completely WRONG on the issue, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, repeating traditional energy arguments (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) significantly following their debunking. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing 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. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and quickly deteriorate, the effects on human life, let alone the survival of other life forms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), 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 possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. His claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, even if it seems logical, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest