🔗 Share this article

LWe must start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder is a politics denier. 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, shared days ago, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and no such thing as billionaires.

Primary Argument

His primary argument suggests that money is insufficient, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should shift funding 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. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on public welfare investments, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and severe reductions in assistance funding of various states. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The selection to enforce it originates with leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Existing Wealth

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, data indicated that the combined assets of the 10 richest US billionaires increased by nearly $700 billion during the previous twelve months. That money alone, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is almost 10 times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of the world's money into their pockets? And why can't we get it back through appropriate revenue collection? The solution lies in their conversion of financial influence into governmental control. With growing fortunes, the stronger their capacity to shape the state and economic system to their will, ensuring that they become richer still. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds 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 industry figures in Washington.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

An obvious relationship appears between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the riches he overlooks. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by keeping pay low, increasing housing costs, undermining worker collectives and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

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 the general population. 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 environmental collapse as unimportant. They were much more inclined to demand 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 strongly against wealth redistribution.

Policy Impact

So whose views prevail? The tiny minority or the great majority? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than ordinary people. What about currently? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to recognize that an important foundation of his argument is unstable: 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 fossil fuels. But Trump and similar demagogues are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

To some degree because of this, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This potentially clarifies why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, in fact, increased.

Cognitive Considerations

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 might be literally incapable of thinking about it. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. While the ultra-rich are notoriously hard to study, 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. 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 certainly took it that way: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." 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!!!"

Previous Positions

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on this topic, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, echoing petroleum industry talking points (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) well after their refutation. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing 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. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and quickly deteriorate, the consequences for people, let alone the survival of other life forms (an issue he regularly neglects), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but through rapid shifts, the possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. His claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, although it may appear reasonable, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest