🔗 Share this article

Let's start with the core issue: Bill Gates 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, 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.

Central Claim

His primary argument suggests that money is insufficient, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should redirect resources from "near-term emissions goals" towards climate resilience and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, some implacable truth about human society. The reason is elite influence has declared war on government social programs, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of additional nations. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The selection to enforce it originates with leaders submitting to the preferences of billionaire class.

Available Resources

Substantial financial resources are present. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, research showed that the total wealth of the top ten US fortune holders grew by $698bn over the last year. These funds independently, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is almost 10 times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of global wealth into personal accounts? And why can't we get it back through effective taxation? The answer is their translation of economic power into political power. The richer they become, the greater their ability to influence political and economic frameworks to their will, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be located.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for corporate executives in the capital.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

An obvious relationship appears between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, 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, driving up rental prices, busting trade unions and winning tax and spending cuts, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Research Findings

A significant investigation 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 multimillionaires it interviewed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were significantly more prone to argue that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and significantly less prone to accept that the unemployed should have a "decent standard of living", or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Political Influence

Which perspectives dominate? 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 regular individuals. What about currently? The current reality seems obvious.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: 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. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than fossil fuels. But Trump and similar demagogues are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

In part due to these factors, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This potentially clarifies why, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, actually grown.

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. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": 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 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.

Strategic Considerations

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: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." Gates has confessed his total mistake. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

Gates has always been completely WRONG on the issue, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, repeating traditional energy arguments (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, 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

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and suddenly collapse, the consequences for people, 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 via abrupt transitions, the conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. His position that all resources should follow existing data-driven assessments of human betterment, while it might sound rational, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest