🔗 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 recognizes environmental science. But he exists in stark, awkward 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 no such thing as billionaires.

The Main Contention

His main contention is that money is insufficient, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should shift funding from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate resilience and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unavoidable reality of communities. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on benign state spending, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and substantial decreases in support money of other countries. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The choice to implement it comes from leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Existing Wealth

Substantial financial resources are present. Just after Gates published his new missive, data indicated that the combined assets of the 10 richest US billionaires increased by nearly $700 billion during the previous twelve months. These funds independently, 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? And why can't we get it back through proper tax policies? The answer is their translation of wealth into policy-making authority. The richer they become, the stronger their capacity to shape the state and economic system to their preferences, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate action and poverty relief could be found.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for corporate executives in the capital.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

A clear connection exists between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, and so is the share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by suppressing salaries, increasing housing costs, undermining worker collectives and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Investigation Conclusions

A remarkable study in political science publications, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from most people. 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 far more likely to insist that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, 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 strongly against wealth redistribution.

Political Influence

So whose views prevail? The tiny minority or the great majority? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than ordinary people. And now? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Omissions and Assumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. Should the billionaire address this, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: 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 traditional energy sources. But The former president and comparable figures are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

To some degree because of this, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This potentially clarifies why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, in fact, increased.

Cognitive Considerations

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. 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 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 acquiring huge amounts of money is like taking a blow to the head. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Political Calculations

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: "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 historically been mistaken on this topic, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, echoing petroleum industry talking points (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) significantly following their debunking. 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".

Further Difficult Realities

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and rapidly fail, the consequences for people, let alone the survival of other life forms (a subject he consistently omits), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, 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, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest