Let's start with the core issue: Bill Gates 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 new piece 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.
Central Claim
His primary argument suggests that financial resources are scarce, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should shift funding from "short-term pollution targets" towards environmental adjustment and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.
Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unavoidable reality of communities. This results from wealthy interests attacking on government social programs, leading to the destruction of USAID and substantial decreases in support money of various states. Austerity is a political choice. The selection to enforce it originates with leaders submitting to the preferences of billionaire class.
Current Funds
There are truckloads of money available. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, research showed that the total wealth of the top ten US fortune holders grew by $698bn in the past year. That money alone, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is approximately ten times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of the world's money into their pockets? And why can't we get it back through appropriate revenue collection? The answer is their translation of financial influence into governmental control. With growing fortunes, the stronger their capacity to shape government and financial structures to their desires, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both climate action and poverty relief could be located.
'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.
Rich-Poor Dynamic
An obvious relationship appears between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the riches he overlooks. In the US, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, 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, racking up rents, busting trade unions and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.
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 the great majority. The wealthy respondents in the study, sharply different from average people, 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 security and federal healthcare should be cut, and significantly less prone to accept that the unemployed should have a "decent standard of living", or that there should be increased oversight of energy firms, financial institutions and insurance providers. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.
Governmental Access
What opinions win out? The tiny minority or the great majority? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than ordinary people. And now? The situation hardly requires explanation.
Omissions and Assumptions
That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. 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, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This might explain, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, actually grown.
Cognitive Considerations
To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. 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. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking 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
But perhaps there's also calculation here: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"
Background Information
Gates has always been completely WRONG on this topic, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, echoing petroleum industry talking points (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) long after they've been discredited. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, 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
The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and rapidly fail, the consequences for people, not to mention the existence of other species (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but through rapid shifts, the conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. His claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, although it may appear reasonable, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest
