🔗 Share this article

LWe must address the central dilemma: Bill Gates ignores the role of politics. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about how politics works. His recent article on climate, published last week, 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 primary argument suggests that funds are very limited, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should redirect resources from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards environmental adjustment and spending on poverty and disease.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but that's not because of some natural law, some implacable truth about human society. The reason is elite influence has declared war on benign state spending, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and substantial decreases in support money of other countries. Austerity is a political choice. The selection to enforce it originates with governments bowing to the wishes of billionaire class.

Current Funds

Substantial financial resources are present. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, data indicated that the combined assets of the 10 richest US billionaires expanded by hundreds of billions over the last year. That money alone, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is almost 10 times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of the world's money into their pockets? What prevents redistribution through effective taxation? The solution lies in their conversion of wealth into policy-making authority. With growing fortunes, the stronger their capacity to shape the state and economic system to their preferences, ensuring that they become richer still. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation 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 industry figures in Washington.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

An obvious relationship appears between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by suppressing salaries, racking up rents, weakening labor organizations and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Research Findings

A significant investigation in Perspectives on Politics, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the general population. The wealthy respondents in the study, completely unlike ordinary citizens, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical 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 much less inclined to think that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Governmental Access

So whose views prevail? The small elite or the vast population? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than regular individuals. What about currently? The current reality seems obvious.

Omissions and Assumptions

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: reductions in the cost of new green technologies lead inexorably to environmental progress. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than traditional energy sources. But Trump and similar demagogues are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

Partly as a result, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This might explain, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks 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. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition could suggest that acquiring huge amounts of money is like taking a blow to the head. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Tactical Elements

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump certainly took it that way: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Gates has confessed his total mistake. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has historically been mistaken on climate matters, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, echoing petroleum industry talking points (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) well after their refutation. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, 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

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and suddenly collapse, the consequences for people, let alone the survival of other life forms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but via abrupt transitions, the potential effects on human welfare are very difficult to forecast. His argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, while it might sound rational, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest