🔗 Share this article

Let's start with the core issue: Bill Gates is a politics denier. While he was slow to accept it, he now recognizes environmental science. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about how politics works. His recent article on climate, released recently, approaches climate change without political context. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

The Main Contention

His main contention is that money is insufficient, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should direct money away from "short-term pollution targets" towards environmental adjustment and spending on poverty and disease.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but that's not because of some natural law, some implacable truth about human society. The reason is elite influence has declared war on public welfare investments, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of additional nations. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The selection to enforce it originates with leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Available Resources

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Just after Gates published his new missive, data indicated that the combined assets of the top ten US fortune holders expanded by hundreds of billions in the past year. These funds independently, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is approximately ten times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of the world's money into their pockets? What prevents redistribution through effective taxation? The answer is their translation of financial influence into governmental control. As their wealth increases, the stronger their capacity to shape the state and economic system to their desires, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be found.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump.' The billionaire alongside Trump at an exclusive meal for business leaders in Washington DC.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

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 percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by suppressing salaries, increasing housing costs, weakening labor organizations and winning tax and spending cuts, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Investigation Conclusions

A remarkable study in political science publications, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the general population. The rich participants surveyed, completely unlike ordinary citizens, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were far more likely to insist that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and much less inclined to think 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 vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Political Influence

So whose views prevail? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than regular individuals. How about today? The current reality seems obvious.

Omissions and Assumptions

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: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than conventional power. But Trump and like-minded politicians are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

To some degree because of this, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This might explain, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, truly expanded.

Mental Aspects

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. While the ultra-rich are notoriously hard to study, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Strategic Considerations

But perhaps there's also calculation here: 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. Gates has confessed his total mistake. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

Gates has always been completely WRONG on this topic, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, echoing petroleum industry talking points (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) significantly following their debunking. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

More Challenging Facts

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and quickly deteriorate, the impact on humanity, let alone the survival of other life forms (a subject he consistently omits), 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 potential effects on human welfare are very difficult to forecast. His claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, even if it seems logical, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest