🔗 Share this article

LWe must begin with the fundamental problem: Bill Gates is a politics denier. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about political realities. His new piece on climate, published last week, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He composes text ignoring political influence, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

The Main Contention

His primary argument suggests that financial resources are scarce, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should redirect resources from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards environmental adjustment and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but that's not because of some natural law, an unchangeable fact of civilization. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on government social programs, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and substantial decreases in support money of various states. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The selection to enforce it originates with authorities yielding to the demands of billionaire class.

Existing Wealth

There are truckloads of money available. Just after Gates published his new missive, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the top ten US fortune holders expanded by hundreds of billions over the last year. These funds independently, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is almost 10 times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of economic resources into private hands? What prevents redistribution through appropriate revenue collection? The explanation involves their transformation of economic power into political power. As their wealth increases, the more they can bend the state and economic system to their desires, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be located.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' The billionaire alongside Trump at an exclusive meal for business leaders in Washington DC.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

A clear connection exists between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the riches he overlooks. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by holding down wages, racking up rents, busting trade unions and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Investigation Conclusions

A significant investigation in academic political journals, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, 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 ecological crisis as insignificant. They were much more inclined to demand that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and far less likely to believe that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Political Influence

What opinions win out? The small elite or the vast population? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than ordinary people. What about currently? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Omissions and Assumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to admit that another key premise is questionable: reductions in the cost of new green technologies lead inexorably to environmental progress. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than conventional power. But Trump and similar demagogues are employing every method to hinder the change.

Partly as a result, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This potentially clarifies why, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, in fact, increased.

Cognitive Considerations

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. 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. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": 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 gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Tactical Elements

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: 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!!!"

Background Information

Gates has always been completely WRONG on climate matters, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, echoing petroleum industry talking points (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) significantly following their debunking. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Further Difficult Realities

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and rapidly fail, the consequences for people, let alone the survival of other life forms (an issue he regularly neglects), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, but via abrupt transitions, 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, even if it seems logical, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest