🔗 Share this article

Let's begin with the fundamental problem: The Microsoft founder is a politics denier. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about political realities. His recent article on climate, shared days ago, approaches climate change without political context. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Central Claim

His main contention is that financial resources are scarce, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should direct money away from "near-term emissions goals" towards environmental adjustment and spending on poverty and disease.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unchangeable fact of civilization. This results from wealthy interests attacking on government social programs, leading to the destruction of USAID and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of additional nations. Austerity is a political choice. The selection to enforce it originates with leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Available Resources

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of America's wealthiest ten individuals grew by $698bn in the past year. That money alone, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is nearly tenfold the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of global wealth into personal accounts? What prevents redistribution through proper tax policies? The explanation involves their transformation of wealth into policy-making authority. As their wealth increases, the greater their ability to influence the state and economic system to their will, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be identified.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with 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 deprivation Gates says concerns him and the riches he overlooks. In the US, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by holding down wages, racking up rents, undermining worker collectives and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Investigation Conclusions

A remarkable study 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 general population. The wealthy respondents in the study, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were much more inclined to demand that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, 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 fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Political Influence

Which perspectives dominate? The small elite or the vast population? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than ordinary people. What about currently? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: 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. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than traditional energy sources. But Trump and similar demagogues are employing every method to hinder the change.

Partly as a result, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This might explain, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, actually grown.

Mental Aspects

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. 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. While the ultra-rich are notoriously hard to study, 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 article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

Gates has always been completely WRONG on climate matters, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, repeating traditional energy arguments (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) long after they've been discredited. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

Additional Tough Truths

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and quickly deteriorate, the impact on humanity, let alone the survival of other life forms (an issue he regularly neglects), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. 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 argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, although it may appear reasonable, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest