🔗 Share this article

Let's begin with the fundamental problem: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. While he was slow to accept it, he now recognizes environmental science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about political realities. His latest essay on climate, published last week, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Primary Argument

His key position states that financial resources are scarce, 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 this isn't due to universal principles, some implacable truth about human society. The reason is elite influence has declared war on government social programs, leading to the destruction of USAID and severe reductions in assistance funding of other countries. Austerity is a political choice. The selection to enforce it originates with leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Available Resources

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, data indicated that the combined assets of the 10 richest US billionaires expanded by hundreds of billions over the last year. This amount by itself, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is almost 10 times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of the world's money into their pockets? Why can't society reclaim it through appropriate revenue collection? The solution lies in their conversion of wealth into policy-making authority. As their wealth increases, the greater their ability to influence government and financial structures to their desires, securing ongoing financial growth. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both climate action and poverty relief 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 corporate executives in the capital.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

An obvious relationship appears between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the riches he overlooks. 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, increasing housing costs, undermining worker collectives and winning tax and spending cuts, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Investigation Conclusions

A remarkable study in academic political journals, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from most people. The rich participants surveyed, completely unlike ordinary citizens, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were far more likely to insist that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and far less likely to believe that the unemployed should have a "decent standard of living", or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Policy Impact

What opinions win out? The small elite or the vast population? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than ordinary people. And now? The current reality seems obvious.

Omissions and Assumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. If Gates included this, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: reductions in the cost of new green technologies lead inexorably to environmental progress. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than fossil fuels. But The former president and comparable figures are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

Partly as a result, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This potentially clarifies why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, actually grown.

Mental Aspects

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": 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. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

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. The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on climate matters, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, reciting fossil fuel claims (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) well after their refutation. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

More Challenging Facts

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and quickly deteriorate, the consequences for people, not to mention the existence of other species (an issue he regularly neglects), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but via abrupt transitions, the possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. His argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, while it might sound rational, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest