🔗 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 acknowledges climate change facts. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about political realities. His new piece 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 main contention is that financial resources are scarce, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should shift funding from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate "adaptation" 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. The reason is elite influence has declared war on government social programs, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and substantial decreases in support money of various states. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The choice to implement it comes from authorities yielding to the demands of extremely wealthy individuals.

Existing Wealth

There are truckloads of money available. Just after Gates published his new missive, research showed that the total wealth of the top ten US fortune holders grew by $698bn over the last year. This amount by itself, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is almost 10 times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of the world's money into their pockets? And why can't we get it back through effective taxation? The explanation involves their transformation of economic power into political power. The richer they become, the stronger their capacity to shape the state and economic system 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 climate action and poverty relief could be found.

'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 business leaders in Washington DC.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

An obvious relationship appears between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by suppressing salaries, increasing housing costs, busting trade unions and winning tax and spending cuts, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Study Results

A remarkable study in academic political journals, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the general population. The wealthy respondents in the study, sharply different from average people, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were significantly more prone to argue that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, 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.

Governmental Access

What opinions win out? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than ordinary people. How about today? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Omissions and Assumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. If Gates included this, he'd have to recognize that an important foundation of his argument is unstable: reductions in the cost of new green technologies lead inexorably to environmental progress. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than conventional power. But The former president and comparable figures are employing every method to hinder the change.

To some degree because of this, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This potentially clarifies why, 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.

Mental Aspects

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. Even though billionaires present research challenges, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking 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

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump certainly took it that way: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on this topic, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, reciting fossil fuel claims (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) long after they've been discredited. He has spread confusion and misinformation, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

More Challenging Facts

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and suddenly collapse, the consequences for people, let alone the survival of other life forms (an issue he regularly neglects), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but through sudden changes of state, 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, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest