🔗 Share this article

Let's address the central dilemma: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. Though he came to it late, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about the realities of power. His new piece on climate, released recently, approaches climate change without political context. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Primary Argument

His key position states that money is insufficient, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should direct money away from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate "adaptation" 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, some implacable truth about human society. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on benign state spending, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and substantial decreases in support money of additional nations. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The decision to impose it is driven by governments bowing to the wishes of billionaire class.

Current Funds

Substantial financial resources are present. Just after Gates published his new missive, Oxfam revealed that the net worth 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 approximately ten times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of the world's money into their pockets? What prevents redistribution through effective taxation? The answer is their translation of financial influence into governmental control. The richer they become, the more they can bend political and economic frameworks to their preferences, securing ongoing financial growth. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be located.

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

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

An obvious relationship appears between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by keeping pay low, increasing housing costs, weakening labor organizations and winning tax and spending cuts, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Research Findings

A remarkable study in political science publications, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the general population. The multimillionaires it interviewed, sharply different from average people, saw budget deficits as the most important 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 jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be stricter rules for petroleum corporations, banking entities and medical coverage companies. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Political Influence

What opinions win out? The tiny minority or the great majority? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than ordinary people. And now? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. Should the billionaire address this, he'd have to admit that another key premise is questionable: reductions in the cost of new green technologies lead inexorably to environmental progress. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than traditional energy sources. But Trump and similar demagogues are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

To some degree because of this, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This might explain, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, truly expanded.

Cognitive Considerations

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. Even though billionaires present research challenges, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Political Calculations

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump definitely understood it as such: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Gates has confessed his total mistake. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on this topic, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, reciting fossil fuel claims (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) long after they've been discredited. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Additional Tough Truths

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and rapidly fail, the effects on human life, not to mention the existence of other species (a subject he consistently omits), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, but through sudden changes of state, 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, although it may appear reasonable, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest