🔗 Share this article

LWe must begin with the fundamental problem: Bill Gates is a politics denier. While he was slow to accept it, he now recognizes environmental science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about how politics works. His recent article on climate, published last week, approaches climate change without political context. He composes text ignoring political influence, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Primary Argument

His main contention is that money is insufficient, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should direct money away from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards environmental adjustment and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, some implacable truth about human society. The reason is elite influence has declared war on public welfare investments, leading to the destruction of USAID and substantial decreases in support money of other countries. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The decision to impose it is driven by authorities yielding to the demands of extremely wealthy individuals.

Current Funds

There are truckloads of money available. Just after Gates published his new missive, data indicated that the combined assets of the top ten US fortune holders grew by $698bn in the past year. This amount by itself, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is almost 10 times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of economic resources into private hands? Why can't society reclaim it through appropriate revenue collection? The answer is their translation of financial influence into governmental control. As their wealth increases, the stronger their capacity to shape the state and economic system to their will, ensuring that they become richer still. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate action and poverty relief could be located.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' The billionaire alongside Trump at an exclusive meal for industry figures in Washington.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

There's a direct link 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 share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by holding down wages, driving up rental prices, busting trade unions and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Study Results

A remarkable study in academic political journals, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the great majority. The wealthy respondents in the study, 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 social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, and much less inclined to think 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 strongly against wealth redistribution.

Political Influence

Which perspectives dominate? The tiny minority or the great majority? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than average citizens. And now? The current reality seems obvious.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. Should the billionaire address this, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: decreasing expenses for eco-friendly innovations automatically creates ecological advancement. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than fossil fuels. But Trump and similar demagogues are employing every method to hinder the change.

Partly as a result, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This could be why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, in fact, increased.

Mental Aspects

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. 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 obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Political Calculations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. Trump certainly took it that way: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on climate matters, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, repeating traditional energy arguments (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) significantly following their debunking. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

More Challenging Facts

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and rapidly fail, the effects on human life, let alone the survival of other life forms (a subject he consistently omits), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but through rapid shifts, 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, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest