🔗 Share this article

Let's address the central dilemma: Bill Gates is a politics denier. Though he came to it late, he now recognizes environmental science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about political realities. His new piece on climate, released recently, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and no such thing as billionaires.

Primary Argument

His primary argument suggests that financial resources are scarce, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should redirect resources from "near-term emissions goals" towards environmental adjustment and spending on poverty and disease.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, some implacable truth about human society. The reason is elite influence has declared war on benign state spending, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and substantial decreases in support money of various states. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The decision to impose it is driven by governments bowing to the wishes of extremely wealthy individuals.

Current Funds

Substantial financial resources are present. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the top ten US fortune holders increased by nearly $700 billion over the last year. This amount by itself, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is approximately ten times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of global wealth into personal accounts? Why can't society reclaim it through appropriate revenue collection? The explanation involves their transformation of financial influence into governmental control. As their wealth increases, the greater their ability to influence the state and economic system to their preferences, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both climate action and poverty relief could be located.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' The billionaire alongside Trump at an exclusive meal for corporate executives in the capital.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

There's a direct link between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by suppressing salaries, increasing housing costs, busting trade unions and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Investigation Conclusions

A notable research in Perspectives on Politics, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the general population. The wealthy respondents in the study, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, viewed government debt as paramount 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 far less likely to believe 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.

Governmental Access

So whose views prevail? The tiny minority or the great majority? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than ordinary people. And now? The current reality seems obvious.

Omissions and Assumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. If Gates included this, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: 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 Trump and like-minded politicians are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

In part due to these factors, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This might explain, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, in fact, increased.

Mental Aspects

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, 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. While the ultra-rich are notoriously hard to study, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that acquiring huge amounts of money is like taking a blow to the head. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Tactical Elements

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: 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. Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on the issue, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, echoing petroleum industry talking points (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) long after they've been discredited. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Further Difficult Realities

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and rapidly fail, the consequences for people, not to mention the existence of other species (a subject he consistently omits), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, 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, while it might sound rational, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest