🔗 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 exists in stark, awkward denial about political realities. His latest essay on climate, published last week, approaches climate change without political context. He composes text ignoring political influence, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Primary Argument

His key position states that financial resources are scarce, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should direct money away from "short-term pollution targets" towards environmental adjustment and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unchangeable fact of civilization. The reason is elite influence has declared war on benign state spending, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and severe reductions in assistance funding of additional nations. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The decision to impose it is driven by leaders submitting to the preferences of billionaire class.

Available Resources

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Just after Gates published his new missive, data indicated that the combined assets of the 10 richest US billionaires expanded by hundreds of billions over the last year. This amount by itself, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is almost 10 times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of global wealth into personal accounts? And why can't we get it back through effective taxation? The solution lies in their conversion of economic power into political power. The richer they become, the greater their ability to influence government and financial structures to their will, ensuring that they become richer still. 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.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for industry figures in Washington.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

A clear connection exists between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the riches he overlooks. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by keeping pay low, increasing housing costs, weakening labor organizations and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Investigation Conclusions

A remarkable study in academic political journals, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from most people. The rich participants surveyed, sharply different from average people, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical 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 significantly less prone to accept that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be increased oversight of energy firms, financial institutions and insurance providers. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Political Influence

So whose views prevail? The small elite or the vast population? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than average citizens. 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 admit that another key premise is questionable: reductions in the cost of new green technologies lead inexorably to environmental progress. 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.

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 oil and gas financial assets have, in fact, increased.

Psychological Factors

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he might be literally incapable of thinking about 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. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Tactical Elements

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump definitely understood it as such: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has always been completely WRONG on climate matters, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, echoing petroleum industry talking points (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) significantly following their debunking. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the objective of Sri Lanka's catastrophic restriction on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Further Difficult Realities

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and quickly deteriorate, the consequences for people, let alone the survival of other life forms (an issue he regularly neglects), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. 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 position that all resources should follow existing data-driven assessments of human betterment, while it might sound rational, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest