🔗 Share this article

LWe must begin with the fundamental problem: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now recognizes environmental science. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about political realities. His new piece 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.

The Main Contention

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 environmental adjustment and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, some implacable truth about human society. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on government social programs, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of various states. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The choice to implement it comes from leaders submitting to the preferences of the ultra-rich.

Existing Wealth

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the top ten US fortune holders expanded by hundreds of billions in the past year. These funds independently, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is approximately ten times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of global wealth into personal accounts? And why can't we get it back through proper tax policies? The explanation involves their transformation of financial influence into governmental control. As their wealth increases, the more they can bend government and financial structures to their preferences, ensuring that they become richer still. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be located.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for corporate executives in the capital.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

There's a direct link between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the riches he overlooks. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by suppressing salaries, driving up rental prices, undermining worker collectives and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, 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 general population. The wealthy respondents in the study, completely unlike ordinary citizens, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were far more likely to insist that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and far less likely to believe that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be increased oversight of energy firms, financial institutions and insurance providers. They were vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Governmental Access

Which perspectives dominate? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than ordinary people. What about currently? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Omissions and Assumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. Should the billionaire address this, he'd have to admit that another key premise is questionable: reductions in the cost of new green technologies lead inexorably to environmental progress. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than fossil fuels. But Trump and like-minded politicians are employing every method to hinder the change.

Partly as a result, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This potentially clarifies why, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, in fact, increased.

Cognitive Considerations

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Tactical Elements

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

Gates has historically been mistaken on climate matters, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, echoing petroleum industry talking points (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) long after they've been discredited. 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".

Additional Tough Truths

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and rapidly fail, the consequences for people, let alone the survival of other life forms (an issue he regularly neglects), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but through sudden changes of state, 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, even if it seems logical, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest