🔗 Share this article

Let's begin with the fundamental problem: The Microsoft founder is a politics denier. Though he came to it late, he now recognizes environmental science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about political realities. His recent article on climate, shared days ago, approaches climate change without political context. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Central Claim

His key position states that financial resources are scarce, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should shift funding from "short-term pollution targets" towards climate resilience and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but this isn't due to universal principles, an unchangeable fact of civilization. The reason is elite influence has declared war on benign state spending, leading to the destruction of USAID and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of other countries. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The choice to implement it comes from governments bowing to the wishes of billionaire class.

Current Funds

Substantial financial resources are present. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, data indicated that the combined assets of the 10 richest US billionaires increased by nearly $700 billion during the previous twelve months. These funds independently, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is almost 10 times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of economic resources into private hands? Why can't society reclaim it through proper tax policies? The answer is their translation of wealth into policy-making authority. With growing fortunes, the greater their ability to influence the state and economic system to their preferences, securing ongoing financial growth. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be identified.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for industry figures in Washington.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

There's a direct link between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by holding down wages, driving up rental prices, weakening labor organizations and winning tax and spending cuts, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Study Results

A notable research in Perspectives on Politics, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the general population. The rich participants surveyed, sharply different from average people, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were significantly more prone to argue that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, and far less likely to believe 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 fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Political Influence

What opinions win out? The small elite or the vast population? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than regular individuals. And now? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Omissions and Assumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. Should the billionaire address this, he'd have to recognize that an important foundation of his argument is unstable: 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 like-minded politicians are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

In part due to these factors, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This could be why, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, truly expanded.

Cognitive Considerations

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. 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, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Tactical Elements

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: 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!!!"

Background Information

Gates has historically been mistaken on the issue, 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) well after their refutation. He has spread confusion and misinformation, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the objective of Sri Lanka's catastrophic restriction on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

More Challenging Facts

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 impact on humanity, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (an issue he regularly neglects), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. 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, even if it seems logical, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest