🔗 Share this article

LWe must start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. While he was slow to accept it, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about political realities. His new piece on climate, published last week, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He composes text ignoring political influence, and no such thing as billionaires.

The Main Contention

His main contention is that funds are very limited, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should redirect resources from "near-term emissions goals" towards climate resilience and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unavoidable reality of communities. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on benign state spending, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and severe reductions in assistance funding of various states. Austerity is a political choice. The choice to implement it comes from leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Current Funds

There are truckloads of money available. Just after Gates published his new missive, research showed that the total wealth of the top ten US fortune holders expanded by hundreds of billions in the past year. This amount by itself, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is nearly tenfold the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of the world's money into their pockets? And why can't we get it back through appropriate revenue collection? The explanation involves their transformation of economic power into political power. As their wealth increases, the greater their ability to influence government and financial structures to their will, securing ongoing financial growth. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be identified.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for business leaders in Washington DC.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

A clear connection exists between the economic hardship Gates professes to address 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%. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by holding down wages, racking up rents, weakening labor organizations and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Investigation Conclusions

A notable research in academic political journals, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from most people. The rich participants surveyed, completely unlike ordinary citizens, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were far more likely to insist that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, and far less likely to believe that unemployed people merit reasonable生活质量, or that there should be stricter rules for petroleum corporations, banking entities and medical coverage companies. 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 current reality seems obvious.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. 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. Of course it helps that wind, solar and other green technologies are becoming radically cheaper than traditional energy sources. But Trump and similar demagogues are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

In part due to these factors, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This potentially clarifies why, despite Gates's claim that his foundation had divested all its "direct holdings in oil and gas companies" in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, truly expanded.

Cognitive Considerations

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. 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. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Tactical Elements

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has always been completely WRONG on this topic, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. 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 propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

Further Difficult Realities

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and quickly deteriorate, the consequences for people, not to mention the existence of other species (a subject he consistently omits), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. 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 argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, although it may appear reasonable, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest