🔗 Share this article

Let's start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about the realities of power. His new piece on climate, published last week, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He composes text ignoring political influence, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Central Claim

His key position states that money is insufficient, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should redirect resources from "near-term emissions goals" towards environmental adjustment and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, some implacable truth about human society. The reason is elite influence has declared war on public welfare investments, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of other countries. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The decision to impose it is driven by leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Available Resources

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 in the past year. These funds independently, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is nearly tenfold the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of the world's money into their pockets? What prevents redistribution through proper tax policies? The solution lies in their conversion of economic power into political power. The richer they become, the greater their ability to influence the state and economic system to their preferences, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be found.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for industry figures in Washington.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

There's a direct link 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 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 securing tax reductions and budget decreases, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Research Findings

A significant investigation in academic political journals, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from most people. The multimillionaires it interviewed, completely unlike ordinary citizens, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. 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 unemployed people merit reasonable生活质量, or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Political Influence

Which perspectives dominate? 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 regular individuals. And now? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Omissions and Assumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. If Gates included this, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: decreasing expenses for eco-friendly innovations automatically creates ecological advancement. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than traditional energy sources. 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 might explain, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, truly expanded.

Psychological Factors

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. 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 profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. While the ultra-rich are notoriously hard to study, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition 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

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. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

Gates has historically been mistaken on climate matters, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, reciting fossil fuel claims (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) well after their refutation. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

Further Difficult Realities

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and rapidly fail, the impact on humanity, not to mention the existence of other species (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but via abrupt transitions, 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, although it may appear reasonable, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest