🔗 Share this article

Let's address the central dilemma: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. While he was slow to accept it, he now recognizes environmental science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about the realities of power. His recent article on climate, shared days ago, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and no such thing as billionaires.

The Main Contention

His main contention is that money is insufficient, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should direct money away from "near-term emissions goals" towards environmental adjustment and spending on poverty and disease.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but that's not because of some natural law, an unchangeable fact of civilization. The reason is elite influence has declared war on government social programs, leading to the destruction of USAID and severe reductions in assistance funding of other countries. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The selection to enforce it originates with governments bowing to the wishes of the ultra-rich.

Available Resources

Substantial financial resources are present. Just after Gates published his new missive, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the top ten US fortune holders increased by nearly $700 billion during the previous twelve months. These funds independently, 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? Why can't society reclaim it through appropriate revenue collection? The answer is their translation of economic power into political power. With growing fortunes, the stronger their capacity to shape government and financial structures to their will, ensuring that they become richer still. But Bill Gates says 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.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

There's a direct link between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the riches he overlooks. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. 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.

Study Results

A notable research in political science publications, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the great majority. The rich participants surveyed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were significantly more prone to argue that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, and significantly less prone to accept 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

What opinions win out? The tiny minority or the great majority? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than ordinary people. What about currently? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Omissions and Assumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: reductions in the cost of new green technologies lead inexorably to environmental progress. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than fossil fuels. But Trump and like-minded politicians are employing every method to hinder the change.

Partly as a result, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. 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 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. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. Even though billionaires present research challenges, 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. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Political Calculations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump definitely understood it as such: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has always been completely WRONG on the issue, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, repeating traditional energy arguments (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) significantly following their debunking. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Additional Tough Truths

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and rapidly fail, the consequences for people, let alone the survival of other life forms (an issue he regularly neglects), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but via abrupt transitions, the possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. His position that all resources should follow existing data-driven assessments of human betterment, although it may appear reasonable, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest