🔗 Share this article

Let's begin with the fundamental problem: Bill Gates ignores the role of politics. While he was slow to accept it, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about political realities. His latest essay on climate, released recently, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and no such thing as billionaires.

Primary Argument

His main contention is that funds are very limited, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should redirect resources from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate "adaptation" and spending on poverty and disease.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but this isn't due to universal principles, some implacable truth about human society. 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 decision to impose it is driven by authorities yielding to the demands of the ultra-rich.

Current Funds

Substantial financial resources are present. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, data indicated that the combined assets of the 10 richest US billionaires increased by nearly $700 billion during the previous twelve months. This amount by itself, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is almost 10 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? And why can't we get it back through proper tax policies? The explanation involves their transformation of economic power into political power. The richer they become, the more they can bend government and financial structures to their will, ensuring that they become richer still. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be identified.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for industry figures in Washington.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

An obvious relationship appears between the deprivation Gates says concerns him 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%. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by keeping pay low, driving up rental prices, busting trade unions and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Study Results

A significant investigation in Perspectives on Politics, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the great majority. The wealthy respondents in the study, completely unlike ordinary citizens, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were significantly more prone to argue that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and far less likely to believe 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 strongly against wealth redistribution.

Political Influence

Which perspectives dominate? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than average citizens. How about today? The current reality seems obvious.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. Should the billionaire address 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 fossil fuels. But Trump and like-minded politicians are employing every method to hinder the change.

To some degree because of this, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This might explain, despite Gates's claim that his foundation had divested all its "direct holdings in oil and gas companies" in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, in fact, increased.

Cognitive Considerations

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, 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. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Political Calculations

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

Gates has always been completely WRONG on climate matters, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, repeating traditional energy arguments (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) well after their refutation. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the objective of Sri Lanka's catastrophic restriction on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

Additional Tough Truths

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. 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 topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but via abrupt transitions, 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, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest