🔗 Share this article

LWe must address the central dilemma: The Microsoft founder is a politics denier. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about the realities of power. His new piece on climate, released recently, approaches climate change without political context. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and no such thing as billionaires.

Primary Argument

His main contention is that funds are very limited, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should redirect resources from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate "adaptation" and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but this isn't due to universal principles, some implacable truth about human society. The reason is elite influence has declared war on government social programs, leading to the destruction of USAID and severe reductions in assistance funding of other countries. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The decision to impose it is driven by governments bowing to the wishes of billionaire class.

Existing Wealth

Substantial financial resources are present. Just after Gates published his new missive, data indicated that the combined assets of the top ten US fortune holders increased by nearly $700 billion during the previous twelve months. This amount by itself, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is nearly tenfold the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of economic resources into private hands? And why can't we get it back through appropriate revenue collection? The explanation involves their transformation of wealth into policy-making authority. With growing fortunes, the greater their ability to influence political and economic frameworks to their will, securing ongoing financial growth. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be located.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' The billionaire alongside Trump at an exclusive meal for business leaders in Washington DC.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

There's a direct link between the deprivation Gates says concerns him 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%. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by holding down wages, racking up rents, busting trade unions and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Study Results

A significant investigation in Perspectives on Politics, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from most people. The wealthy respondents in the study, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were far more likely to insist 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 stricter rules for petroleum corporations, banking entities and medical coverage companies. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Policy Impact

So whose views prevail? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than ordinary people. And now? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

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 admit that another key premise is questionable: reductions in the cost of new green technologies lead inexorably to environmental progress. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than fossil fuels. But The former president and comparable figures are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

Partly as a result, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This potentially clarifies why, despite Gates's claim that his foundation had divested all its "direct holdings in oil and gas companies" in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, actually grown.

Psychological Factors

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. While the ultra-rich are notoriously hard to study, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Political Calculations

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump definitely understood it as such: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." Gates has confessed his total mistake. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on this topic, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, repeating traditional energy arguments (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) well after their refutation. 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 artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

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 suddenly collapse, the impact on humanity, let alone the survival of other life forms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but via abrupt transitions, 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, even if it seems logical, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest