🔗 Share this article

LWe must begin with the fundamental problem: Bill Gates is a politics denier. Though he came to it late, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about how politics works. His latest essay on climate, published last week, 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.

Primary Argument

His primary argument suggests that funds are very limited, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should redirect resources from "short-term pollution targets" towards environmental adjustment and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unchangeable fact of civilization. This results from wealthy interests attacking on public welfare investments, leading to the destruction of USAID and substantial decreases in support money of additional nations. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The decision to impose it is driven by leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Current Funds

Substantial financial resources are present. Just after Gates published his new missive, data indicated that the combined assets of America's wealthiest ten individuals increased by nearly $700 billion over the last year. This amount by itself, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is almost 10 times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of the world's money into their pockets? Why can't society reclaim it through appropriate revenue collection? The explanation involves their transformation of wealth into policy-making authority. With growing fortunes, the more they can bend political and economic frameworks to their preferences, ensuring that they become richer still. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be located.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for corporate executives in the capital.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

There's a direct link between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the riches he overlooks. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by holding down wages, increasing housing costs, busting trade unions and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Research Findings

A remarkable study in political science publications, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from the great majority. The rich participants surveyed, sharply different from average people, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were significantly more prone to argue that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, and far less likely to believe 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.

Political Influence

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. How about today? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Omissions and Assumptions

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: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Of course it helps that wind, solar and other green technologies are becoming radically cheaper than traditional energy sources. But Trump and like-minded politicians are employing every method to hinder the change.

Partly as a result, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This might explain, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, in fact, increased.

Psychological Factors

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Even though billionaires present research challenges, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Tactical Elements

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. The former president clearly interpreted it this 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

Gates has historically been mistaken on the issue, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, repeating traditional energy arguments (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) significantly following their debunking. He has spread confusion and misinformation, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the objective of Sri Lanka's catastrophic restriction on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Further Difficult Realities

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and rapidly fail, the impact on humanity, let alone the survival of other life forms (an issue he regularly neglects), 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 possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. His argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, while it might sound rational, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest