🔗 Share this article

LWe must start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. While he was slow to accept it, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about how politics works. His new piece on climate, released recently, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

The Main Contention

His key position states that funds are very limited, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should shift funding from "short-term pollution targets" towards climate "adaptation" and spending on poverty and disease.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but that's not because of some natural law, an unavoidable reality of communities. This results from wealthy interests attacking on benign state spending, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of additional nations. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The choice to implement it comes from authorities yielding to the demands of the ultra-rich.

Available Resources

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Just after Gates published his new missive, research showed that the total wealth of the 10 richest US billionaires grew by $698bn over the last year. That money alone, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is almost 10 times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of global wealth into personal accounts? And why can't we get it back through effective taxation? The solution lies in their conversion of financial influence into governmental control. With growing fortunes, the greater their ability to influence political and economic frameworks to their preferences, securing ongoing financial growth. 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 essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump.' The billionaire alongside Trump at an exclusive meal for business leaders in Washington DC.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

An obvious relationship appears between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by keeping pay low, driving up rental prices, busting trade unions and winning tax and spending cuts, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Study Results

A remarkable study in political science publications, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the general population. The multimillionaires it interviewed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were far more likely to insist that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, and significantly less prone to accept that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be stricter rules for petroleum corporations, banking entities and medical coverage companies. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Governmental Access

What opinions win out? The small elite or the vast population? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than average citizens. And now? The current reality seems obvious.

Omissions and Assumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to recognize that an important foundation of his argument is unstable: decreasing expenses for eco-friendly innovations automatically creates ecological advancement. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than fossil fuels. But Trump and like-minded politicians are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

Partly as a result, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This potentially clarifies 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.

Psychological Factors

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 could genuinely find it impossible to consider. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Tactical Elements

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

Gates has historically been mistaken on climate matters, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, echoing petroleum industry talking points (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) long after they've been discredited. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

More Challenging Facts

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and suddenly collapse, the impact on humanity, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (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 conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. His claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, even if it seems logical, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest