🔗 Share this article

Let's address the central dilemma: Bill Gates denies political realities. 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, published last week, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Central Claim

His primary argument suggests that money is insufficient, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should shift funding from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate resilience and spending on poverty and disease.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but that's not because of some natural law, an unchangeable fact of civilization. This results from wealthy interests attacking on public welfare investments, leading to the destruction of USAID and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of various states. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The selection to enforce it originates with leaders submitting to the preferences of billionaire class.

Existing Wealth

There are truckloads of money available. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, research showed that the total wealth of the 10 richest US billionaires grew by $698bn in the past year. This amount by itself, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is nearly tenfold the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of the world's money into their pockets? Why can't society reclaim it through appropriate revenue collection? The explanation involves their transformation of economic power into political power. The richer they become, the greater their ability to influence the state and economic system to their preferences, securing ongoing financial growth. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be found.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for business leaders in Washington DC.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

A clear connection exists 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. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by keeping pay low, racking up rents, weakening labor organizations and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Investigation Conclusions

A significant investigation in Perspectives on Politics, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from most people. The rich participants surveyed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical 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.

Governmental Access

So whose views prevail? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than ordinary people. How about today? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Omissions and Assumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. If Gates included this, he'd have to admit that another key premise is questionable: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than conventional power. But The former president and comparable figures are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

Partly as a result, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This could be why, despite Gates's claim that his foundation had divested all its "direct holdings in oil and gas companies" in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, truly expanded.

Mental Aspects

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Even though billionaires present research challenges, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Tactical Elements

But perhaps there's also calculation here: 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. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on climate matters, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. 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 spread confusion and misinformation, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

More Challenging Facts

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and suddenly collapse, the effects on human life, not to mention the existence of other species (an issue he regularly neglects), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. 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 claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, although it may appear reasonable, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest