🔗 Share this article

Let's address the central dilemma: Bill Gates denies political realities. While he was slow to accept it, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about political realities. His latest essay on climate, published last week, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Central Claim

His main contention is that financial resources are scarce, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should shift funding from "short-term pollution targets" towards climate "adaptation" and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but that's not because of some natural law, an unchangeable fact of civilization. This results from wealthy interests attacking on benign state spending, leading to the destruction of USAID and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of other countries. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The selection to enforce it originates with authorities yielding to the demands of extremely wealthy individuals.

Current Funds

There are truckloads of money available. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, research showed that the total wealth of the 10 richest US billionaires expanded by hundreds of billions during the previous twelve months. 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 global wealth into personal accounts? Why can't society reclaim it through effective taxation? The explanation involves their transformation of wealth into policy-making authority. The richer they become, the more they can bend government and financial structures to their will, securing ongoing financial growth. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be found.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for corporate executives in the capital.

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, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, 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 securing tax reductions and budget decreases, 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 extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from most people. The rich participants surveyed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were significantly more prone to argue that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and far less likely to believe that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be increased oversight of energy firms, financial institutions and insurance providers. They were vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Policy Impact

What opinions win out? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than average citizens. How about today? 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. 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. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than conventional power. But The former president and comparable figures are employing every method to hinder the change.

In part due to these factors, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. 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. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. 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. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Political Calculations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: 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. 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, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, repeating traditional energy arguments (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) well after their refutation. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

More Challenging Facts

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and suddenly collapse, the impact on humanity, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (a subject he consistently omits), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, 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, while it might sound rational, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest