🔗 Share this article

LWe must address the central dilemma: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. While he was slow to accept it, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about the realities of power. His latest essay on climate, published last week, approaches climate change without political context. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Central Claim

His key position states that money is insufficient, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should shift funding from "near-term emissions goals" towards environmental adjustment and spending on poverty and disease.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unavoidable reality of communities. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on public welfare investments, leading to the destruction of USAID and severe reductions in assistance funding of other countries. Austerity is a political choice. The choice to implement it comes from governments bowing to the wishes of the ultra-rich.

Existing Wealth

Substantial financial resources are present. Just after Gates published his new missive, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the 10 richest US billionaires increased by nearly $700 billion during the previous twelve months. That money alone, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is nearly tenfold the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of global wealth into personal accounts? Why can't society reclaim it through proper tax policies? The solution lies in their conversion of economic power into political power. The richer they become, the stronger their capacity to shape the state and economic system to their preferences, ensuring that they become richer still. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate action and poverty relief could be identified.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for corporate executives in the capital.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

A clear connection exists between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about 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 keeping pay low, driving up rental prices, weakening labor organizations and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Study Results

A remarkable study in political science publications, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the general population. The rich participants surveyed, sharply different from average people, 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 significantly less prone to accept 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.

Governmental Access

So whose views prevail? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than average citizens. What about currently? The current reality seems obvious.

Omissions and Assumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. 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. Of course it helps that wind, solar and other green technologies are becoming radically cheaper than conventional power. But Trump and similar demagogues are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

To some degree because of this, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This could be why, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, truly expanded.

Mental Aspects

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": 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 obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Political Calculations

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump certainly took it that way: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

Gates has historically been mistaken on this topic, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, repeating traditional energy arguments (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) long after they've been discredited. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Additional Tough Truths

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and suddenly collapse, the effects on human life, not to mention the existence of other species (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), 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 possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. His claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, even if it seems logical, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest