🔗 Share this article

Let's start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about how politics works. His recent article on climate, released recently, approaches climate change without political context. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Primary Argument

His main contention is that money is insufficient, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should redirect resources from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate "adaptation" and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but that's not because of some natural law, an unavoidable reality of communities. This results from wealthy interests attacking on benign state spending, leading to the destruction of USAID and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of additional nations. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The selection to enforce it originates with authorities yielding to the demands of extremely wealthy individuals.

Available Resources

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Just after Gates published his new missive, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the top ten US fortune holders grew by $698bn over the last year. That money alone, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is nearly tenfold the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of economic resources into private hands? Why can't society reclaim it through appropriate revenue collection? The explanation involves their transformation of financial influence into governmental control. As their wealth increases, the greater their ability to influence political and economic frameworks to their will, securing ongoing financial growth. 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.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for industry figures in Washington.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

There's a direct link between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, 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, increasing housing costs, undermining worker collectives and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, 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 billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from the great majority. The rich participants surveyed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. 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 more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Political Influence

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. And now? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Omissions and Assumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. Were Gates to do so, 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 conventional power. But Trump and similar demagogues are employing every method to hinder the change.

To some degree because of this, 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 fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, actually grown.

Cognitive Considerations

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. 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 fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Strategic Considerations

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump definitely understood it as such: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

Gates has always been completely WRONG on the issue, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, reciting fossil fuel claims (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) 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 chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Further Difficult Realities

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 suddenly collapse, the effects on human life, let alone the survival of other life forms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but through rapid shifts, the potential effects on human welfare are very difficult to forecast. 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