🔗 Share this article

Let's address the central dilemma: Bill Gates is a politics denier. Though he came to it late, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about the realities of power. His recent article on climate, released recently, approaches climate change without political context. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Primary Argument

His key position states that financial resources are scarce, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should shift funding from "near-term emissions goals" towards environmental adjustment and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, some implacable truth about human society. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on public welfare investments, leading to the destruction of USAID and severe reductions in assistance funding of various states. Austerity is a political choice. The selection to enforce it originates with authorities yielding to the demands of billionaire class.

Existing Wealth

There are truckloads of money available. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, research showed that the total wealth of the top ten US fortune holders grew by $698bn over the last year. These funds independently, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is nearly tenfold the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of economic resources into private hands? Why can't society reclaim it through appropriate revenue collection? The explanation involves their transformation of financial influence into governmental control. With growing fortunes, the greater their ability to influence government and financial structures to their preferences, ensuring that they become richer still. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate action and poverty relief could be located.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for industry figures in Washington.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

A clear connection exists between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by holding down wages, increasing housing costs, busting trade unions and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Research Findings

A remarkable study in political science publications, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from the general population. The rich participants surveyed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were much more inclined to demand 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 strongly against wealth redistribution.

Governmental Access

So whose views prevail? The tiny minority or the great majority? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, 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: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. If Gates included 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 Trump and similar demagogues are employing every method to hinder the change.

To some degree because of this, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This might explain, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, in fact, increased.

Cognitive Considerations

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. 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. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. While the ultra-rich are notoriously hard to study, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes 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.

Political Calculations

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump certainly took it that way: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

Gates has historically been mistaken on climate matters, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, reciting fossil fuel claims (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) significantly following their debunking. He has spread confusion and misinformation, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the objective of Sri Lanka's catastrophic restriction on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

Additional Tough Truths

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and rapidly fail, the impact on humanity, let alone the survival of other life forms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, but through sudden changes of state, 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, although it may appear reasonable, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest