🔗 Share this article

Let's address the central dilemma: Bill Gates is a politics denier. While he was slow to accept it, he now recognizes environmental science. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about political realities. His latest essay on climate, published last week, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Primary Argument

His key position states 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, some implacable truth about human society. The reason is elite influence has declared war on benign state spending, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and severe reductions in assistance funding of additional nations. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The decision to impose it is driven by governments bowing to the wishes of billionaire class.

Current Funds

Substantial financial resources are present. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, data indicated that the combined assets of America's wealthiest ten individuals grew by $698bn in the past year. This amount by itself, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is almost 10 times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of economic resources into private hands? What prevents redistribution through effective taxation? The answer is their translation of economic power into political power. With growing fortunes, the more they can bend government and financial structures to their desires, securing ongoing financial growth. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both climate action and poverty relief could be identified.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for business leaders in Washington DC.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

There's a direct link between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, and so is the share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by suppressing salaries, racking up rents, undermining worker collectives and winning tax and spending cuts, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Research Findings

A notable research in Perspectives on Politics, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the general population. The rich participants surveyed, sharply different from average people, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were much more inclined to demand that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, and far less likely to believe that unemployed people merit reasonable生活质量, or that there should be stricter rules for petroleum corporations, banking entities and medical coverage companies. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Political Influence

What opinions win out? The tiny minority or the great majority? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than average citizens. 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. Were Gates to do so, 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. Of course it helps that wind, solar and other green technologies are becoming radically cheaper than conventional power. But Trump and similar demagogues are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

In part due to these factors, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This might explain, despite Gates's claim that his foundation had divested all its "direct holdings in oil and gas companies" in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, truly expanded.

Mental Aspects

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 may actually be unable to conceptualize it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Even though billionaires present research challenges, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Political Calculations

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump definitely understood it as such: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." Gates has confessed his total mistake. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on the issue, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, echoing petroleum industry talking points (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) long after they've been discredited. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

More Challenging Facts

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and rapidly fail, the impact on humanity, let alone the survival of other life forms (an issue he regularly neglects), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. 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 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