🔗 Share this article

LWe must 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 how politics works. His new piece on climate, shared days ago, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

The Main Contention

His primary argument suggests that financial resources are scarce, so the delegates at this month's climate summit 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 this isn't due to universal principles, an unchangeable fact of civilization. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on benign state spending, leading to the destruction of USAID and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of additional nations. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The decision to impose it is driven by leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Existing Wealth

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, research showed that the total wealth of the 10 richest US billionaires expanded by hundreds of billions in the past year. That money alone, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is approximately ten times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of global wealth into personal accounts? Why can't society reclaim it through effective taxation? The solution lies in their conversion of economic power into political power. As their wealth increases, the greater their ability to influence political and economic frameworks to their will, ensuring that they become richer still. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be located.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for business leaders in Washington DC.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

There's a direct link between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by holding down wages, racking up rents, weakening labor organizations and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Research Findings

A significant investigation in political science publications, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from most people. The wealthy respondents in the study, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were much more inclined to demand that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, and much less inclined to think 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 strongly against wealth redistribution.

Policy Impact

Which perspectives dominate? The small elite or the vast population? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than regular individuals. And now? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Omissions and Assumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. If Gates included this, he'd have to admit that another key premise is questionable: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than fossil fuels. But Trump and similar demagogues are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

To some degree because of this, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This could be why, despite Gates's claim that his foundation had divested all its "direct holdings in oil and gas companies" in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, in fact, increased.

Cognitive Considerations

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Tactical Elements

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. Trump certainly took it that way: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has always been completely WRONG on this topic, 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) long after they've been discredited. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the objective of Sri Lanka's catastrophic restriction on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

More Challenging Facts

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and rapidly fail, the consequences for people, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), 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 potential effects on human welfare are very difficult to forecast. His claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, although it may appear reasonable, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest