🔗 Share this article

Let's begin with the fundamental problem: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about how politics works. 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 pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Central Claim

His main contention is that funds are very limited, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should direct money away from "short-term pollution targets" towards climate resilience and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but this isn't due to universal principles, an unchangeable fact of civilization. The reason is elite influence has declared war on government social programs, leading to the destruction of USAID and substantial decreases in support money of additional nations. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The choice to implement it comes from authorities yielding to the demands of billionaire class.

Current Funds

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Just after Gates published his new missive, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of America's wealthiest ten individuals expanded by hundreds of billions in the past year. These funds independently, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is nearly tenfold the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate 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 wealth into policy-making authority. With growing fortunes, the more they can bend the state and economic system to their preferences, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be located.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for corporate executives in the capital.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

There's a direct link between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the riches he overlooks. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by suppressing salaries, racking up rents, weakening labor organizations and winning tax and spending cuts, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Investigation Conclusions

A remarkable study in academic political journals, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from most people. The rich participants surveyed, completely unlike ordinary citizens, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were significantly more prone to argue that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, and much less inclined to think 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.

Policy Impact

What opinions win out? 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 average citizens. What about currently? The current reality seems obvious.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. If Gates included this, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: decreasing expenses for eco-friendly innovations automatically creates ecological advancement. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than conventional power. But Trump and similar demagogues are employing every method to hinder the change.

Partly as a result, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This might explain, 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, in fact, increased.

Psychological Factors

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. 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. While the ultra-rich are notoriously hard to study, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that acquiring huge amounts of money is like taking a blow to the head. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Tactical Elements

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has always been completely WRONG on this topic, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, reciting fossil fuel claims (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) long after they've been discredited. He has spread confusion and misinformation, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the objective of Sri Lanka's catastrophic restriction on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Additional Tough Truths

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and rapidly fail, the effects on human life, not to mention the existence of other species (a subject he consistently omits), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but through sudden changes of state, the potential effects on human welfare are very difficult to forecast. His argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, while it might sound rational, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest