🔗 Share this article

LWe must address the central dilemma: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now recognizes environmental science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about how politics works. His new piece on climate, published last week, 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.

The Main Contention

His primary argument suggests that funds are very limited, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should direct money away from "short-term pollution targets" towards climate resilience and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but that's not because of some natural law, an unavoidable reality of communities. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on government social programs, leading to the destruction of USAID and substantial decreases in support money of other countries. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The decision to impose it is driven by governments bowing to the wishes of the ultra-rich.

Existing Wealth

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, research showed that the total wealth of the top ten US fortune holders expanded by hundreds of billions over the last year. This amount by itself, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is almost 10 times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of global wealth into personal accounts? Why can't society reclaim it through effective taxation? The explanation involves their transformation of wealth into policy-making authority. With growing fortunes, the more they can bend political and economic frameworks to their preferences, ensuring that they become richer still. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be found.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for industry figures in Washington.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

A clear connection exists between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the riches he overlooks. 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, driving up rental prices, weakening labor organizations and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Study Results

A remarkable study in political science publications, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the great majority. The rich participants surveyed, completely unlike ordinary citizens, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were much more inclined to demand that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, and far less likely to believe that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be stricter rules for petroleum corporations, banking entities and medical coverage companies. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Policy Impact

So whose views prevail? The small elite or the vast population? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than ordinary people. How about today? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

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: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Of course it helps that wind, solar and other green technologies are becoming radically cheaper than conventional power. But The former president and comparable figures are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

To some degree because of this, 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 oil and gas financial assets have, in fact, increased.

Mental Aspects

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. Even though billionaires present research challenges, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Strategic Considerations

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. 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!!!"

Historical Context

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on this topic, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, reciting fossil fuel claims (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) long after they've been discredited. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the objective of Sri Lanka's catastrophic restriction on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

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 quickly deteriorate, the impact on humanity, let alone the survival of other life forms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but through rapid shifts, 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, while it might sound rational, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest