🔗 Share this article

Let's address the central dilemma: Bill Gates ignores the role of politics. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about political realities. His recent article on climate, released recently, approaches climate change without political context. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Central Claim

His primary argument suggests that money is insufficient, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should redirect resources from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate resilience and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unavoidable reality of communities. This results from wealthy interests attacking on benign state spending, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and severe reductions in assistance funding of other countries. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The selection to enforce it originates with authorities yielding to the demands of extremely wealthy individuals.

Existing Wealth

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Just after Gates published his new missive, research showed that the total wealth of America's wealthiest ten individuals increased by nearly $700 billion over the last year. That money alone, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is almost 10 times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of economic resources into private hands? Why can't society reclaim it through effective taxation? The answer is their translation of financial influence into governmental control. With growing fortunes, the greater their ability to influence government and financial structures to their desires, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be found.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for industry figures in Washington.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

There's a direct link between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, and so is the share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by holding down wages, racking up rents, weakening labor organizations and winning tax and spending cuts, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Research Findings

A significant investigation in Perspectives on Politics, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the great majority. The multimillionaires it interviewed, 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 much more inclined to demand that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, and significantly less prone to accept that the unemployed should have a "decent standard of living", or that there should be increased oversight of energy firms, financial institutions and insurance providers. They were fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Policy Impact

Which perspectives dominate? The small elite or the vast population? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than ordinary people. And now? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. 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 traditional energy sources. But Trump and similar demagogues are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

Partly as a result, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This might explain, despite Gates's claim that his foundation had divested all its "direct holdings in oil and gas companies" in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, actually grown.

Mental Aspects

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. 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, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that acquiring huge amounts of money is like taking a blow to the head. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Tactical Elements

But perhaps there's also calculation here: 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

Gates has always been completely WRONG on the issue, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, echoing petroleum industry talking points (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) significantly following their debunking. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing 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 currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and suddenly collapse, the consequences for people, 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 via abrupt transitions, the conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. His argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, even if it seems logical, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest