🔗 Share this article

Let's begin with the fundamental problem: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about political realities. His new piece on climate, released recently, approaches climate change without political context. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Central Claim

His key position states that money is insufficient, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should shift funding from "near-term emissions goals" towards environmental adjustment 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. The reason is elite influence has declared war on government social programs, leading to the destruction of USAID and substantial decreases in support money of various states. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The choice to implement it comes from governments bowing to the wishes of the ultra-rich.

Current Funds

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, data indicated that the combined assets of the 10 richest US billionaires grew by $698bn in the past year. That money alone, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is approximately ten times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of economic resources into private hands? What prevents redistribution through proper tax policies? The solution lies in their conversion of financial influence into governmental control. As their wealth increases, the greater their ability to influence government and financial structures to their desires, securing ongoing financial growth. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate action and poverty relief could be located.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to 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 wealth he fails to mention. In the US, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by suppressing salaries, increasing housing costs, undermining worker collectives and winning tax and spending cuts, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Research Findings

A significant investigation in academic political journals, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from most people. The wealthy respondents in the study, sharply different from average people, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were far more likely to insist that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and much less inclined to think 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 strongly against wealth redistribution.

Governmental Access

What opinions win out? The tiny minority or the great majority? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than ordinary people. How about today? The situation hardly requires explanation.

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 recognize that an important foundation of his argument is unstable: 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 similar demagogues are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

Partly as a result, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This could be why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, in fact, increased.

Cognitive Considerations

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Political Calculations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." Gates has confessed his total mistake. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on climate matters, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, repeating traditional energy arguments (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) long after they've been discredited. He has spread confusion and misinformation, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition 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 currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and quickly deteriorate, the effects on human life, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (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 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, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest