🔗 Share this article

Let's address the central dilemma: Bill Gates is a politics denier. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about how politics works. His recent article on climate, released recently, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and no such thing as billionaires.

Central Claim

His primary argument suggests that funds are very limited, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should shift funding from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate "adaptation" and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but this isn't due to universal principles, an unavoidable reality of communities. This results from wealthy interests attacking on government social programs, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of additional nations. Austerity is a political choice. The choice to implement it comes from governments bowing to the wishes of the ultra-rich.

Existing Wealth

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, research showed that the total wealth of the 10 richest US billionaires grew by $698bn in the past year. That money alone, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is almost 10 times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of economic resources into private hands? What prevents redistribution through effective taxation? The explanation involves their transformation of economic power into political power. With growing fortunes, the more they can bend political and economic frameworks to their will, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both climate action and poverty relief could be identified.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for corporate executives in the capital.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

There's a direct link between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by keeping pay low, racking up rents, undermining worker collectives and winning tax and spending cuts, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Research Findings

A remarkable study in Perspectives on Politics, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from the great majority. The wealthy respondents in the study, completely unlike ordinary citizens, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were significantly more prone to argue that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, and far less likely to believe 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 fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Governmental Access

Which perspectives dominate? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than regular individuals. How about today? The situation hardly requires explanation.

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 recognize that an important foundation of his argument is unstable: 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 similar demagogues are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

To some degree because of this, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This might explain, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, truly expanded.

Mental Aspects

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. 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. 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 gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Strategic Considerations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump certainly took it that way: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has always been completely WRONG on climate matters, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, reciting fossil fuel claims (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) long after they've been discredited. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Additional Tough Truths

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and rapidly fail, the effects on human life, let alone the survival of other life forms (an issue he regularly neglects), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but through rapid shifts, the conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. His argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, even if it seems logical, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest