🔗 Share this article

Let's begin with the fundamental problem: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. While he was slow to accept it, he now recognizes environmental science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about how politics works. 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 pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Central Claim

His main contention is that funds are very limited, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should redirect resources from "near-term emissions goals" towards climate "adaptation" and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but that's not because of some natural law, an unavoidable reality of communities. The reason is elite influence has declared war on public welfare investments, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of additional nations. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The decision to impose it is driven by authorities yielding to the demands of the ultra-rich.

Current Funds

There are truckloads of money available. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the 10 richest US billionaires increased by nearly $700 billion over the last year. This amount by itself, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is almost 10 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 appropriate revenue collection? The explanation involves their transformation of financial influence into governmental control. As their wealth increases, the stronger their capacity to shape political and economic frameworks to their will, ensuring that they become richer still. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate action and poverty relief could be identified.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for business leaders in Washington DC.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

An obvious relationship appears between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the riches he overlooks. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by keeping pay low, increasing housing costs, busting trade unions and winning tax and spending cuts, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Study Results

A remarkable study in academic political journals, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives 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 ecological crisis as insignificant. They were far more likely to insist 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 fiercely opposed to 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 average citizens. What about currently? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. 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 conventional power. But Trump and similar demagogues are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

To some degree because of this, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This could be why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, in fact, increased.

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. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": 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 acquiring huge amounts of money is like taking a blow to the head. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Strategic Considerations

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. Trump certainly took it that way: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on the issue, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, repeating traditional energy arguments (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) long after they've been discredited. He has spread confusion and misinformation, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Further Difficult Realities

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and quickly deteriorate, the impact on humanity, not to mention the existence of other species (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 through sudden changes of state, the conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. His position that all resources should follow existing data-driven assessments of human betterment, while it might sound rational, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest