🔗 Share this article

Let's start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about political realities. His recent article on climate, published last week, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and no such thing as billionaires.

The Main Contention

His primary argument suggests that money is insufficient, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should redirect resources from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate "adaptation" and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, some implacable truth about human society. The reason is elite influence has declared 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 selection to enforce it originates with governments bowing to the wishes of extremely wealthy individuals.

Available Resources

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Just after Gates published his new missive, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of America's wealthiest ten individuals expanded by hundreds of billions in the past year. This amount by itself, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is nearly tenfold the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of the world's money into their pockets? What prevents redistribution through effective taxation? The answer is their translation of economic power into political power. With growing fortunes, the greater their ability to influence the state and economic system to their will, securing ongoing financial growth. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be identified.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' The billionaire alongside Trump at an exclusive meal for corporate executives in the capital.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

An obvious relationship appears between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the riches he overlooks. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by holding down wages, racking up rents, undermining worker collectives and winning tax and spending cuts, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Study Results

A significant investigation in Perspectives on Politics, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from most people. The multimillionaires it interviewed, completely unlike ordinary citizens, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were much more inclined to demand that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, 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 fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Policy Impact

So whose views prevail? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than regular individuals. What about currently? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. Should the billionaire address this, he'd have to recognize that an important foundation of his argument is unstable: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than traditional energy sources. But The former president and comparable figures are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

Partly as a result, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This potentially clarifies 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.

Psychological Factors

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. While the ultra-rich are notoriously hard to study, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition 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.

Strategic Considerations

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." Gates has confessed his total mistake. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

Gates has always been completely WRONG on this topic, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, repeating traditional energy arguments (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) well after their refutation. He has spread confusion and misinformation, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Additional Tough Truths

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and suddenly collapse, the effects on human life, let alone the survival of other life forms (a subject he consistently omits), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but through sudden changes of state, 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, while it might sound rational, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest