🔗 Share this article

Let's begin with the fundamental problem: Bill Gates is a politics denier. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about the realities of power. His recent article on climate, published last week, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He composes text ignoring political influence, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

The Main Contention

His key position states that funds are very limited, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should shift funding from "near-term emissions goals" towards climate resilience and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but this isn't due to universal principles, an unavoidable reality of communities. The reason is elite influence has declared war on government social programs, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of other countries. Austerity is a political choice. The selection to enforce it originates with governments bowing to the wishes of billionaire class.

Available Resources

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Just after Gates published his new missive, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the 10 richest US billionaires increased by nearly $700 billion in the past year. This amount by itself, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is approximately ten 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? And why can't we get it back through appropriate revenue collection? The solution lies in their conversion of wealth into policy-making authority. As their wealth increases, the more they can bend political and economic frameworks to their desires, ensuring that they become richer still. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be identified.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' The billionaire alongside Trump at an exclusive meal for corporate executives in the capital.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

A clear connection exists between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by suppressing salaries, racking up rents, busting trade unions and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Study Results

A notable research in political science publications, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from most people. The wealthy respondents in the study, sharply different from average people, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were much more inclined to demand that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and far less likely to believe that unemployed people merit reasonable生活质量, or that there should be increased oversight of energy firms, financial institutions and insurance providers. They were vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Policy Impact

Which perspectives dominate? The small elite or the vast population? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than regular individuals. What about currently? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

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. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than conventional power. But Trump and similar demagogues are employing every method to hinder the change.

In part due to these factors, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This potentially clarifies why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, truly expanded.

Mental Aspects

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. Even though billionaires present research challenges, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Strategic Considerations

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on this topic, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, echoing petroleum industry talking points (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) well after their refutation. He has spread confusion and misinformation, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the objective of Sri Lanka's catastrophic restriction on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

More Challenging Facts

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 suddenly collapse, the impact on humanity, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but through sudden changes of state, 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, even if it seems logical, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest