🔗 Share this article

Let's start with the core issue: Bill Gates denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about political realities. His latest essay on climate, shared days ago, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Primary Argument

His main contention is that money is insufficient, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should direct money away from "short-term pollution targets" towards climate resilience and spending on poverty and disease.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but that's not because of some natural law, an unchangeable fact of civilization. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on government social programs, leading to the destruction of USAID and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of various states. Austerity is a political choice. The choice to implement it comes from authorities yielding to the demands of extremely wealthy individuals.

Available Resources

There are truckloads of money available. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, research showed that the total wealth of America's wealthiest ten individuals increased by nearly $700 billion over the last year. That money alone, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is nearly tenfold the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of economic resources into private hands? And why can't we get it back through appropriate revenue collection? The answer is their translation of financial influence into governmental control. The richer they become, the stronger their capacity to shape political and economic frameworks to their will, ensuring that they become richer still. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be identified.

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

Wealth Inequality Relationship

An obvious relationship appears between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the riches he overlooks. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by keeping pay low, increasing housing costs, weakening labor organizations and winning tax and spending cuts, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

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 most people. The wealthy respondents in the study, completely unlike ordinary citizens, saw budget deficits as the most important 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 significantly less prone to accept that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Policy Impact

So whose views prevail? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than regular individuals. What about currently? The current reality seems obvious.

Omissions and Assumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to admit that another key premise is questionable: decreasing expenses for eco-friendly innovations automatically creates ecological advancement. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than conventional power. But Trump and similar demagogues are employing every method to hinder the change.

In part due to these factors, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This potentially clarifies why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, in fact, increased.

Mental Aspects

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. While the ultra-rich are notoriously hard to study, 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, 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: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

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 (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) long after they've been discredited. He has spread confusion and misinformation, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

Further Difficult Realities

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 effects on human life, not to mention the existence of other species (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but through sudden changes of state, the conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. His argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, although it may appear reasonable, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest