🔗 Share this article

Let's address the central dilemma: Bill Gates is a politics denier. While he was slow to accept it, he now recognizes environmental science. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about political realities. His latest essay on climate, published last week, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He composes text ignoring political influence, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Central Claim

His key position states that funds are very limited, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should direct money away from "short-term pollution targets" towards climate "adaptation" and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but that's not because of some natural law, an unavoidable reality of communities. The reason is elite influence has declared war on benign state spending, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and severe reductions in assistance funding of other countries. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The selection to enforce it originates with leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Existing Wealth

Substantial financial resources are present. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, research showed that the total wealth of America's wealthiest ten individuals grew by $698bn over the last year. This amount by itself, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is nearly tenfold the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of global wealth into personal accounts? What prevents redistribution through proper tax policies? The answer is their translation of financial influence into governmental control. The richer they become, the more they can bend government and financial structures to their preferences, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both climate action and poverty relief could be found.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for business leaders in Washington DC.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

There's a direct link between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by holding down wages, driving up rental prices, weakening labor organizations and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Study Results

A significant investigation in academic political journals, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the great majority. The rich participants surveyed, completely unlike ordinary citizens, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were far more likely to insist that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and much less inclined to think 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 vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Policy Impact

What opinions win out? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than average citizens. And now? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. Should the billionaire address this, he'd have to admit that another key premise is questionable: 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 like-minded politicians are employing every method to hinder the change.

To some degree because of this, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This could be why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, actually grown.

Mental Aspects

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. Even though billionaires present research challenges, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Tactical Elements

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." Gates has confessed his total mistake. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

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) significantly following their debunking. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

Additional Tough Truths

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and rapidly fail, the effects on human life, not to mention the existence of other species (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 via abrupt transitions, the potential effects on human welfare are very difficult to forecast. His claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, while it might sound rational, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest