🔗 Share this article

LWe must begin with the fundamental problem: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about how politics works. His new piece on climate, released recently, approaches climate change without political context. He composes text ignoring political influence, and no such thing as billionaires.

Primary Argument

His key position states that financial resources are scarce, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should direct money away from "near-term emissions goals" towards environmental adjustment and spending on poverty and disease.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, some implacable truth about human society. This results from wealthy interests attacking on benign state spending, leading to the destruction of USAID and severe reductions in assistance funding of various states. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The selection to enforce it originates with governments bowing to the wishes of extremely wealthy individuals.

Existing Wealth

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of America's wealthiest ten individuals increased by nearly $700 billion in the past year. These funds independently, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is approximately ten times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of economic resources into private hands? And why can't we get it back through appropriate revenue collection? The solution lies in their conversion of wealth into policy-making authority. With growing fortunes, the greater their ability to influence government and financial structures to their preferences, securing ongoing financial growth. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be found.

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

Rich-Poor Dynamic

A clear connection exists between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by suppressing salaries, driving up rental prices, weakening labor organizations and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Study Results

A remarkable study in academic political journals, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the great majority. The wealthy respondents in the study, sharply different from average people, 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 significantly less prone to accept that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Political Influence

What opinions win out? The tiny minority or the great majority? 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

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to recognize that an important foundation of his argument is unstable: 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 like-minded politicians are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

Partly as a result, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This could be 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. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Even though billionaires present research challenges, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Tactical Elements

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "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 always been completely WRONG on climate matters, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, reciting fossil fuel claims (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) well after their refutation. 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 artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

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, not to mention the existence of other species (a subject he consistently omits), 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 claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, although it may appear reasonable, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest