🔗 Share this article

Let's address the central dilemma: Bill Gates is a politics denier. While he was slow to accept it, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about how politics works. His recent article on climate, shared days ago, approaches climate change without political context. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and no such thing as billionaires.

Primary Argument

His primary argument suggests that money is insufficient, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should direct money away from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards environmental adjustment and spending on poverty and disease.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but this isn't due to universal principles, an unavoidable reality of communities. This results from wealthy interests attacking on benign state spending, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of various states. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The decision to impose it is driven by authorities yielding to the demands of extremely wealthy individuals.

Available Resources

There are truckloads of money available. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the top ten US fortune holders increased by nearly $700 billion during the previous twelve months. This amount by itself, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is almost 10 times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of economic resources into private hands? And why can't we get it back through proper tax policies? The solution lies in their conversion of economic power into political power. As their wealth increases, the stronger their capacity to shape government and financial structures to their preferences, securing ongoing financial growth. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be found.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for business leaders in Washington DC.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

An obvious relationship appears between the economic hardship Gates professes to address 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, racking up rents, weakening labor organizations and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Study Results

A notable research in political science publications, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the general population. The wealthy respondents in the study, completely unlike ordinary citizens, 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 stricter rules for petroleum corporations, banking entities and medical coverage companies. They were vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Governmental Access

What opinions win out? The tiny minority or the great majority? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, 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.

Omissions and Assumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to admit that another key premise is questionable: 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 traditional energy sources. But Trump and similar demagogues are employing every method to hinder the change.

Partly as a result, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This potentially clarifies why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, actually grown.

Psychological Factors

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": 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.

Political Calculations

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Gates has confessed his total mistake. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on this topic, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, repeating traditional energy arguments (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) well after their refutation. He has spread confusion and misinformation, like the baseless statement in his latest article 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. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and rapidly fail, the effects on human life, let alone the survival of other life forms (an issue he regularly neglects), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, but through sudden changes of state, the potential effects on human welfare are very difficult to forecast. His argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, while it might sound rational, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest