🔗 Share this article

Let's address the central dilemma: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now recognizes environmental science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about the realities of power. His latest essay on climate, published last week, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Primary Argument

His primary argument suggests that money is insufficient, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should shift funding from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate resilience and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but this isn't due to universal principles, some implacable truth about human society. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on public welfare investments, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and severe reductions in assistance funding of various states. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The decision to impose it is driven by leaders submitting to the preferences of billionaire class.

Existing Wealth

Substantial financial resources are present. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, data indicated that the combined assets of the 10 richest US billionaires expanded by hundreds of billions over the last year. This amount by itself, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is almost 10 times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of economic resources into private hands? What prevents redistribution through proper tax policies? The answer is their translation of wealth into policy-making authority. The richer they become, the stronger their capacity to shape the state and economic system to their will, securing ongoing financial growth. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be found.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for business leaders in Washington DC.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

An obvious relationship appears between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, and so is the share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by keeping pay low, racking up rents, weakening labor organizations and winning tax and spending cuts, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Research Findings

A notable research in political science publications, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from most people. The rich participants surveyed, completely unlike ordinary citizens, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were significantly more prone to argue that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, and far less likely to believe that unemployed people merit reasonable生活质量, or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Governmental Access

Which perspectives dominate? The small elite or the vast population? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than average citizens. What about currently? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. If Gates included this, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: decreasing expenses for eco-friendly innovations automatically creates ecological advancement. Of course it helps that wind, solar and other green technologies are becoming radically cheaper than traditional energy sources. But Trump and like-minded politicians are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

In part due to these factors, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This could be why, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, in fact, increased.

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. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. While the ultra-rich are notoriously hard to study, 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. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Strategic Considerations

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has historically been mistaken on this topic, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, reciting fossil fuel claims (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) long after they've been discredited. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the objective of Sri Lanka's catastrophic restriction on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Additional Tough Truths

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and quickly deteriorate, the consequences for people, let alone the survival of other life forms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, but via abrupt transitions, the conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. His position that all resources should follow existing data-driven assessments of human betterment, while it might sound rational, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest