This article fiercely criticizes Bill Gates for his 'politics denial' in his latest climate essay, arguing he ignores crucial political realities like wealth inequality, oligarchic power, and austerity. It challenges Gates's proposal to prioritize climate adaptation and poverty over emissions, asserting that ample funds exist but are hoarded by the ultra-rich through political influence. The author also suggests Gates's essay may be an appeasement to Donald Trump and highlights Gates's historical missteps and a 'billionaire brain' in addressing complex climate and social issues.
The article launches a strong critique against Bill Gates, accusing him of 'politics denial' in his recent essay on climate change. It argues that Gates treats the issue in a political vacuum, ignoring realities such as political power, the existence of billionaires, and the impact of austerity. Gates's main contention is that funds are limited, suggesting delegates at a climate summit should direct money away from 'near-term emissions goals' towards climate 'adaptation' and spending on poverty and disease. The author refutes this, stating that fund scarcity is not a natural law but a political choice driven by oligarchic power that has led to cuts in aid budgets globally. Citing Oxfam's report, the article highlights that the net worth of the 10 richest US billionaires grew by $698bn in the past year—almost 10 times the annual amount needed to end extreme poverty worldwide. This wealth, it argues, is channeled through economic power translated into political power, allowing the ultra-rich to bend the state to their will and avoid effective taxation. The piece draws a direct link between the poverty Gates claims to care about and the wealth he overlooks, noting that the ultra-rich thrive by impoverishing others through tactics like holding down wages and winning tax cuts. A study in Perspectives on Politics is cited, revealing that the ultra-rich have vastly different political views from the majority, prioritizing budget deficits over climate breakdown and opposing redistribution. This elite minority, the article contends, has far greater access to politicians and officials. Another significant absence in Gates's essay, according to the author, is any mention of Donald Trump, which would force Gates to acknowledge that reductions in green technology costs don't inexorably lead to environmental progress, as Trump actively impedes the transition. The article also questions Gates's claim of divesting from fossil fuels, stating his foundation's holdings in these areas have, in fact, increased. The author posits that Gates's inability to consider overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy might be a symptom of 'billionaire brain'—a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's points of view, where immense wealth scrambles cognitive functions related to empathy. The essay is also interpreted as a 'peace offering' to Donald Trump, who publicly misconstrued it as Gates admitting the 'climate change hoax' was won. Finally, the article criticizes Gates for consistently being behind the curve on climate science, spreading misinformation, and ignoring the 'tough truth' that crucial Earth systems could cross tipping points and collapse suddenly, rendering his vision of 'smooth and steady progress' profoundly irrational in the face of systemic change. The author concludes that while Bill Gates's economic and political power makes him impossible to ignore, his pronouncements ultimately serve his own interests.
