🔗 Share this article

Let's start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder is a politics denier. While he was slow to accept it, he now recognizes environmental science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about political realities. His latest essay on climate, shared days ago, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and no such thing as billionaires.

Central Claim

His key position states that financial resources are scarce, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should direct money away from "near-term emissions goals" towards environmental adjustment and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but this isn't due to universal principles, 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 other countries. Austerity is a political choice. The decision to impose it is driven by leaders submitting to the preferences of the ultra-rich.

Available Resources

Substantial financial resources are present. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the top ten US fortune holders increased by nearly $700 billion in the past year. That money alone, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is nearly tenfold the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of economic resources into private hands? And why can't we get it back through proper tax policies? The answer is their translation of wealth into policy-making authority. The richer they become, the more they can bend government and financial structures to their desires, securing ongoing financial growth. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources 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

There's a direct link between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by holding down wages, increasing housing costs, undermining worker collectives and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Study Results

A notable research in Perspectives on Politics, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from most people. The rich participants surveyed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were significantly more prone to argue that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, and much less inclined to think that unemployed people merit reasonable生活质量, or that there should be stricter rules for petroleum corporations, banking entities and medical coverage companies. They were fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Policy Impact

What opinions win out? The tiny minority or the great majority? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than regular individuals. What about currently? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to recognize that an important foundation of his argument is unstable: reductions in the cost of new green technologies lead inexorably to environmental progress. Of course it helps that wind, solar and other green technologies are becoming radically cheaper than fossil fuels. But Trump and like-minded politicians are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

In part due to these factors, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This potentially clarifies why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, truly expanded.

Mental Aspects

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Even though billionaires present research challenges, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Strategic Considerations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "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 historically been mistaken on climate matters, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, echoing petroleum industry talking points (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) significantly following their debunking. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the objective of Sri Lanka's catastrophic restriction on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

More Challenging Facts

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and suddenly collapse, the impact on humanity, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (a subject he consistently omits), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, but via abrupt transitions, the possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. 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