🔗 Share this article

LWe must address the central dilemma: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about the realities of power. His recent article on climate, shared days ago, approaches climate change without political context. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and no such thing as billionaires.

The Main Contention

His key position states that money is insufficient, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should direct money away from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate resilience and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unchangeable fact of civilization. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on public welfare investments, leading to the destruction of USAID and substantial decreases in support money of other countries. Austerity is a political choice. The selection to enforce it originates with authorities yielding to the demands of extremely wealthy individuals.

Existing Wealth

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, data indicated that the combined assets of the 10 richest US billionaires increased by nearly $700 billion in the past year. This amount by itself, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is nearly tenfold the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of global wealth into personal accounts? What prevents redistribution through effective taxation? The answer is their translation of economic power into political power. As their wealth increases, the greater their ability to influence 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 located.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for corporate executives in the capital.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

An obvious relationship appears between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the wealth he fails to mention. 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 holding down wages, increasing housing costs, undermining worker collectives and winning tax and spending cuts, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Study Results

A notable research in Perspectives on Politics, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from most people. The wealthy respondents in the study, 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 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 vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Policy Impact

What opinions win out? The small elite or the vast population? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than regular individuals. And now? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Omissions and Assumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to admit that another key premise is questionable: decreasing expenses for eco-friendly innovations automatically creates ecological advancement. Of course it helps that wind, solar and other green technologies are becoming radically cheaper than fossil fuels. But Trump and similar demagogues are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

In part due to these factors, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This might explain, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, actually grown.

Cognitive Considerations

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. 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. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, 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. The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

Gates has always been completely WRONG on this topic, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, repeating traditional energy arguments (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) significantly following their debunking. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the objective of Sri Lanka's catastrophic restriction on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

More Challenging Facts

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and quickly deteriorate, the consequences for people, not to mention the existence of other species (an issue he regularly neglects), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but through sudden changes of state, 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, although it may appear reasonable, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest