🔗 Share this article

LWe must start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. While he was slow to accept it, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about the realities of power. His recent article on climate, published last week, approaches climate change without political context. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Primary Argument

His key position states that financial resources are scarce, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should shift funding from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate "adaptation" and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unchangeable fact of civilization. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on government social programs, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and substantial decreases in support money of various states. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The selection to enforce it originates with authorities yielding to the demands of extremely wealthy individuals.

Existing Wealth

Substantial financial resources are present. Just after Gates published his new missive, research showed that the total wealth of America's wealthiest ten individuals expanded by hundreds of billions in the past year. These funds independently, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is nearly tenfold the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of global wealth into personal accounts? Why can't society reclaim it through proper tax policies? The solution lies in their conversion of economic power into political power. As their wealth increases, the greater their ability to influence the state and economic system to their will, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be located.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for industry figures in Washington.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

There's a direct link 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 percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by suppressing salaries, driving up rental prices, undermining worker collectives and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Study Results

A significant investigation in political science publications, 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, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were significantly more prone to argue that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, and far less likely to believe 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.

Political Influence

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 regular individuals. 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. Should the billionaire address this, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than fossil fuels. But Trump and like-minded politicians are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

To some degree because of this, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This could be why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, actually grown.

Psychological Factors

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. Even though billionaires present research challenges, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Strategic Considerations

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. Trump certainly took it that way: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Gates has confessed his total mistake. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

Gates has always been completely WRONG on the issue, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, repeating traditional energy arguments (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) well after their refutation. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the objective of Sri Lanka's catastrophic restriction 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, let alone the survival of other life forms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), 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 position that all resources should follow existing data-driven assessments of human betterment, although it may appear reasonable, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest