🔗 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 accepts the realities of climate science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about the realities of power. His new piece on climate, shared days ago, 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.

Central Claim

His main contention is that money is insufficient, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should redirect resources from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" 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. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on benign state spending, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and severe reductions in assistance funding of other countries. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The selection to enforce it originates with leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Available Resources

Substantial financial resources are present. Just after Gates published his new missive, research showed that the total wealth of the top ten US fortune holders expanded by hundreds of billions over the last year. These funds independently, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is almost 10 times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of the world's money into their pockets? What prevents redistribution through appropriate revenue collection? The solution lies in their conversion of financial influence into governmental control. With growing fortunes, the more they can bend political and economic frameworks to their preferences, ensuring that they become richer still. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be found.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' The billionaire alongside Trump at an exclusive meal for corporate executives in the capital.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

An obvious relationship appears between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by suppressing salaries, driving up rental prices, weakening labor organizations and winning tax and spending cuts, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Investigation Conclusions

A significant investigation in political science publications, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the general population. The multimillionaires it interviewed, sharply different from average people, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were far more likely to insist 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 strongly against wealth redistribution.

Policy Impact

So whose views prevail? The small elite or the vast population? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than average citizens. What about currently? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Omissions and Assumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. Should the billionaire address 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. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than conventional power. But The former president and comparable figures are employing every method to hinder the change.

Partly as a result, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This potentially clarifies why, 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. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, 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. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Political Calculations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump certainly took it that way: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Gates has confessed his total mistake. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has always been completely WRONG on this topic, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, reciting fossil fuel claims (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) long after they've been discredited. He has spread confusion and misinformation, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Additional Tough Truths

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and rapidly fail, the effects on human life, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (a subject he consistently omits), 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 potential effects on human welfare are very difficult to forecast. His position that all resources should follow existing data-driven assessments of human betterment, while it might sound rational, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest