🔗 Share this article

LWe must address the central dilemma: Bill Gates is a politics denier. Though he came to it late, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about political realities. His new piece on climate, published last week, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Primary Argument

His key position states that money is insufficient, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should redirect resources from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate resilience and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but this isn't due to universal principles, an unchangeable fact of civilization. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on government social programs, leading to the destruction of USAID and severe reductions in assistance funding of other countries. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The decision to impose it is driven by leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Current Funds

There are truckloads of money available. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of America's wealthiest ten individuals grew by $698bn over the last year. These funds independently, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is approximately ten times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of economic resources into private hands? What prevents redistribution through proper tax policies? The solution lies in their conversion of wealth into policy-making authority. With growing fortunes, the more they can bend political and economic frameworks to their desires, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be identified.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump.' The billionaire alongside Trump at an exclusive meal for corporate executives in the capital.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

A clear connection exists 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, driving up rental prices, busting trade unions and winning tax and spending cuts, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Research Findings

A significant investigation in academic political journals, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from most people. The multimillionaires it interviewed, completely unlike ordinary citizens, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were significantly more prone to argue that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and significantly less prone to accept that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Political Influence

What opinions win out? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than average citizens. What about currently? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Omissions and Assumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. 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. Of course it helps that wind, solar and other green technologies are becoming radically cheaper than conventional power. But Trump and like-minded politicians are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

To some degree because of this, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This potentially clarifies why, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, in fact, increased.

Psychological Factors

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. 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 deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Even though billionaires present research challenges, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Tactical Elements

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump definitely understood it as such: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on the issue, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, repeating traditional energy arguments (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) significantly following their debunking. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, 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

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and quickly deteriorate, the impact on humanity, not to mention the existence of other species (a subject he consistently omits), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, but through sudden changes of state, the possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. His position that all resources should follow existing data-driven assessments of human betterment, although it may appear reasonable, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest