🔗 Share this article

Let's address the central dilemma: Bill Gates denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about the realities of power. His new piece on climate, released recently, approaches climate change without political context. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Central Claim

His key position states that financial resources are scarce, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should direct money away from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate resilience and spending on poverty and disease.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but that's not because of some natural law, an unavoidable reality of communities. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on benign state spending, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of additional nations. Austerity is a political choice. The selection to enforce it originates with governments bowing to the wishes of billionaire class.

Available Resources

There are truckloads of money available. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, research showed that the total wealth of the top ten US fortune holders expanded by hundreds of billions during the previous twelve months. These funds independently, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is nearly tenfold the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of the world's money into their pockets? Why can't society reclaim it through appropriate revenue collection? The answer is their translation of financial influence into governmental control. With growing fortunes, the greater their ability to influence government and financial structures to their desires, ensuring that they become richer still. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be identified.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for business leaders in Washington DC.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

There's a direct link 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%. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by suppressing salaries, increasing housing costs, weakening labor organizations and winning tax and spending cuts, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Research Findings

A notable research in Perspectives on Politics, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from most people. The wealthy respondents in the study, sharply different from average people, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were significantly more prone to argue that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and much less inclined to think that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Policy Impact

What opinions win out? The small elite or the vast population? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than ordinary people. And now? 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. If Gates included this, he'd have to admit that another key premise is questionable: decreasing expenses for eco-friendly innovations automatically creates ecological advancement. 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.

In part due to these factors, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This could be 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, truly expanded.

Cognitive Considerations

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. While the ultra-rich are notoriously hard to study, 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, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Strategic Considerations

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

Gates has historically been mistaken on this topic, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, 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 purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

Further Difficult Realities

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and suddenly collapse, the impact on humanity, let alone the survival of other life forms (a subject he consistently omits), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but through rapid shifts, 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, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest