🔗 Share this article

Let's begin with the fundamental problem: The Microsoft founder is a politics denier. Though he came to it late, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about political realities. His latest essay 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.

Central Claim

His primary argument suggests that funds are very limited, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting 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 unavoidable reality of communities. This results from wealthy interests attacking on benign state spending, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of additional nations. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The selection to enforce it originates with authorities yielding to the demands of the ultra-rich.

Available Resources

There are truckloads of money available. 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. That money alone, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, 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? Why can't society reclaim it through effective taxation? The solution lies in their conversion of financial influence into governmental control. With growing fortunes, the stronger their capacity to shape government and financial structures to their will, ensuring that they become richer still. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be located.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for industry figures in Washington.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

A clear connection exists between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, 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, increasing housing costs, undermining worker collectives and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Research Findings

A significant investigation in political science publications, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the great majority. The multimillionaires it interviewed, completely unlike ordinary citizens, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were far more likely to insist that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, 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 vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Governmental Access

What opinions win out? 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. What about currently? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Omissions and Assumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. 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. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than conventional power. But Trump and similar demagogues are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

To some degree because of this, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This might explain, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, actually grown.

Psychological Factors

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Tactical Elements

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." Gates has confessed his total mistake. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has always been completely WRONG on climate matters, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, echoing petroleum industry talking points (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) long after they've been discredited. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Additional Tough Truths

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and suddenly collapse, the consequences for people, let alone the survival of other life forms (a subject he consistently omits), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but through rapid shifts, the possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. His argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, although it may appear reasonable, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest