🔗 Share this article

LWe must begin with the fundamental problem: Bill Gates ignores the role of politics. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about political realities. His new piece on climate, released recently, approaches climate change without political context. He composes text ignoring political influence, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Primary Argument

His primary argument suggests that money is insufficient, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should redirect resources from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards environmental adjustment and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but this isn't due to universal principles, some implacable truth about human society. This results from wealthy interests attacking on government social programs, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and substantial decreases in support money of various states. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The choice to implement it comes from leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Existing Wealth

There are truckloads of money available. Just after Gates published his new missive, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the 10 richest US billionaires expanded by hundreds of billions in the past year. This amount by itself, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is approximately ten times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of global wealth into personal accounts? And why can't we get it back through proper tax policies? The solution lies in their conversion of financial influence into governmental control. The richer they become, the stronger their capacity to shape government and financial structures to their desires, 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 located.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for corporate executives in the capital.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

An obvious relationship appears 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 percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by holding down wages, racking up rents, busting trade unions and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Research Findings

A remarkable study in academic political journals, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from most people. The wealthy respondents in the study, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were far more likely to insist 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 fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Governmental Access

What opinions win out? The tiny minority or the great majority? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than average citizens. 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 recognize that an important foundation of his argument is unstable: decreasing expenses for eco-friendly innovations automatically creates ecological advancement. Of course it helps that wind, solar and other green technologies are becoming radically cheaper than fossil fuels. But Trump and similar demagogues are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

To some degree because of this, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This might explain, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, actually grown.

Cognitive Considerations

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. 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, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Strategic Considerations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Gates has confessed his total mistake. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

Gates has historically been mistaken on the issue, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, 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, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

Further Difficult Realities

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and rapidly fail, the impact on humanity, not to mention the existence of other species (a subject he consistently omits), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but through rapid shifts, the conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. His claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, even if it seems logical, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest