🔗 Share this article

Let's start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder is a politics denier. While he was slow to accept it, he now recognizes environmental science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about political realities. His recent article on climate, published last week, approaches climate change without political context. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and no such thing as billionaires.

The Main Contention

His main contention is that financial resources are scarce, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should shift funding from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards environmental adjustment and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unchangeable fact of civilization. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on government social programs, leading to the destruction of USAID and substantial decreases in support money of additional nations. Austerity is a political choice. The decision to impose it is driven by authorities yielding to the demands of the ultra-rich.

Current Funds

Substantial financial resources are present. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, research showed that the total wealth of the top ten US fortune holders expanded by hundreds of billions during the previous twelve months. That money alone, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is approximately ten times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of the world's money into their pockets? What prevents redistribution through effective taxation? The answer is their translation of economic power into political power. The richer they become, the more they can bend government and financial structures to their preferences, ensuring that they become richer still. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both climate action and poverty relief could be found.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for corporate executives in the capital.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

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. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by suppressing salaries, increasing housing costs, weakening labor organizations and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Research Findings

A notable research in Perspectives on Politics, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the general population. The rich participants surveyed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were significantly more prone to argue that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, 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 vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Governmental Access

Which perspectives dominate? The tiny minority or the great majority? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than ordinary people. And now? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Omissions and Assumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. If Gates included 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 traditional energy sources. But Trump and similar demagogues are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

Partly as a result, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This might explain, despite Gates's claim that his foundation had divested all its "direct holdings in oil and gas companies" in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, truly expanded.

Mental Aspects

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. 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, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Strategic Considerations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump certainly took it that way: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on this topic, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, repeating traditional energy arguments (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) well after their refutation. He has spread confusion and misinformation, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing 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 suddenly collapse, the impact on humanity, let alone the survival of other life forms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but through sudden changes of state, the possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. 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