🔗 Share this article

LWe must begin with the fundamental problem: The Microsoft founder is a politics denier. While he was slow to accept it, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about political realities. His recent article on climate, released recently, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and no such thing as billionaires.

The Main Contention

His main contention is that financial resources are scarce, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should direct money away from "near-term emissions goals" towards environmental adjustment and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but this isn't due to universal principles, some implacable truth about human society. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on benign state spending, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of various states. Austerity is a political choice. The decision to impose it is driven by authorities yielding to the demands of extremely wealthy individuals.

Available Resources

Substantial financial resources are present. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of America's wealthiest ten individuals grew by $698bn during the previous twelve months. That money alone, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is nearly tenfold the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of global wealth into personal accounts? What prevents redistribution through effective taxation? The explanation involves their transformation of economic power into political power. As their wealth increases, the stronger their capacity to shape political and economic frameworks to their desires, ensuring that they become richer still. But Bill Gates says 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.' 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, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by holding down wages, driving up rental prices, undermining worker collectives and winning tax and spending cuts, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Study Results

A remarkable study in Perspectives on Politics, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from most people. The rich participants surveyed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. 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 increased oversight of energy firms, financial institutions and insurance providers. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Policy Impact

Which perspectives dominate? The small elite or the vast population? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than ordinary people. And now? The current reality seems obvious.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. If Gates included this, he'd have to admit that another key premise is questionable: reductions in the cost of new green technologies lead inexorably to environmental progress. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than fossil fuels. But Trump and similar demagogues are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

To some degree because of this, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This could be why, despite Gates's claim that his foundation had divested all its "direct holdings in oil and gas companies" in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, truly expanded.

Cognitive Considerations

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Political Calculations

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!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has historically been mistaken on climate matters, 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, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

Additional Tough Truths

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and quickly deteriorate, the effects on human life, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (a subject he consistently omits), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, 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, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest