🔗 Share this article

LWe must address the central dilemma: The Microsoft founder is a politics denier. While he was slow to accept it, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about how politics works. His recent article on climate, shared days ago, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and no such thing as billionaires.

The Main Contention

His primary argument suggests that funds are very limited, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should direct money away from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate "adaptation" and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but this isn't due to universal principles, an unchangeable fact of civilization. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on government social programs, leading to the destruction of USAID and severe reductions in assistance funding of other countries. Austerity is a political choice. The decision to impose it is driven by leaders submitting to the preferences of billionaire class.

Existing Wealth

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Just after Gates published his new missive, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of America's wealthiest ten individuals expanded by hundreds of billions in the past year. This amount by itself, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is almost 10 times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of economic resources into private hands? Why can't society reclaim it through appropriate revenue collection? The solution lies in their conversion of wealth into policy-making authority. The richer they become, the more they can bend government and financial structures to their desires, ensuring that they become richer still. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be located.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for industry figures in Washington.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

There's a direct link 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 portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by suppressing salaries, increasing housing costs, weakening labor organizations and winning tax and spending cuts, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Research Findings

A remarkable study in academic political journals, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from most people. The rich participants surveyed, completely unlike ordinary citizens, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were much more inclined to demand that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, and significantly less prone to accept that the unemployed should have a "decent standard of living", or that there should be increased oversight of energy firms, financial institutions and insurance providers. They were vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Governmental Access

Which perspectives dominate? The small elite or the vast population? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than ordinary people. What about currently? The current reality seems obvious.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. Should the billionaire address this, 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 conventional power. But The former president and comparable figures are employing every method to hinder the change.

Partly as a result, 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, 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. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that acquiring huge amounts of money is like taking a blow to the head. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, 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: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on this topic, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, repeating traditional energy arguments (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) long after they've been discredited. He has spread confusion and misinformation, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Additional Tough Truths

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and suddenly collapse, the impact on humanity, not to mention the existence of other species (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 via abrupt transitions, the possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. His claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, while it might sound rational, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest