🔗 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 lives in flat, embarrassing denial about the realities of power. His latest essay on climate, shared days ago, approaches climate change without political context. He composes text ignoring political influence, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Primary Argument

His primary argument suggests that funds are very limited, so the delegates at this month's climate summit 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 this isn't due to universal principles, some implacable truth about human society. The reason is elite influence has declared war on public welfare investments, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of various states. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The decision to impose it is driven by authorities yielding to the demands of extremely wealthy individuals.

Current Funds

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Just after Gates published his new missive, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of America's wealthiest ten individuals grew by $698bn in the past year. This amount by itself, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is nearly tenfold the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of the world's money into their pockets? And why can't we get it back through proper tax policies? The solution lies in their conversion 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 how and where extra money for both climate action and poverty relief could be found.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for business leaders in Washington DC.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

An obvious relationship appears between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by holding down wages, increasing housing costs, undermining worker collectives and winning tax and spending cuts, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Study Results

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 the general population. The multimillionaires it interviewed, sharply different from average people, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were much more inclined to demand that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, and significantly less prone to accept that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be increased oversight of energy firms, financial institutions and insurance providers. They were fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Political Influence

What opinions win out? The small elite or the vast population? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than ordinary people. And now? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Omissions and Assumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to admit that another key premise is questionable: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. 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.

To some degree because of this, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This might explain, 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, actually grown.

Cognitive Considerations

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": 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 acquiring huge amounts of money is like taking a blow to the head. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, 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. 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!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has historically been mistaken on this topic, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, echoing petroleum industry talking points (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) long after they've been discredited. 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 chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Further Difficult Realities

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 suddenly collapse, the impact on humanity, not to mention the existence of other species (a subject he consistently omits), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, 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, although it may appear reasonable, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest