🔗 Share this article

LWe must start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. Though he came to it late, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about the realities of power. His latest essay on climate, shared days ago, approaches climate change without political context. He composes text ignoring political influence, and no such thing as billionaires.

The Main Contention

His main contention is that financial resources are scarce, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should redirect resources from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate "adaptation" and spending on poverty and disease.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but that's not because of some natural law, some implacable truth about human society. This results from wealthy interests attacking on public welfare investments, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of other countries. Austerity is a political choice. The decision to impose it is driven by leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Existing Wealth

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of America's wealthiest ten individuals grew by $698bn 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. Through what means did they accumulate of economic resources into private hands? What prevents redistribution through appropriate revenue collection? The explanation involves their transformation of economic power into political power. As their wealth increases, the stronger their capacity to shape government and financial structures to their will, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be located.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for business leaders in Washington DC.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

A clear connection exists between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the riches he overlooks. In the US, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by keeping pay low, driving up rental prices, weakening labor organizations and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, 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 billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from the general population. The multimillionaires it interviewed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were much more inclined to demand that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, and far less likely to believe that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Governmental Access

So whose views prevail? The few wealthy or the many citizens? 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. How about today? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Omissions and Assumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. Should the billionaire address this, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than fossil fuels. But The former president and comparable figures are employing every method to hinder the change.

In part due to these factors, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This might explain, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, in fact, increased.

Cognitive Considerations

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. 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. 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, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Tactical Elements

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." Gates has confessed his total mistake. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

Gates has historically been mistaken on this topic, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, echoing petroleum industry talking points (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) well after their refutation. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

More Challenging Facts

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and rapidly fail, the effects on human life, not to mention the existence of other species (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 conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. 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