🔗 Share this article

Let's address the central dilemma: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. While he was slow to accept it, he now recognizes environmental science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about political realities. His new piece on climate, released recently, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He composes text ignoring political influence, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

The Main Contention

His key position states 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 spending on poverty and disease.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unchangeable fact of civilization. This results from wealthy interests attacking on benign state spending, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and severe reductions in assistance funding of various states. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The selection to enforce it originates with governments bowing to the wishes of the ultra-rich.

Available Resources

There are truckloads of money available. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of America's wealthiest ten individuals expanded by hundreds of billions during the previous twelve months. That money alone, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is nearly tenfold the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of economic resources into private hands? What prevents redistribution through effective taxation? The explanation involves their transformation of economic power into political power. With growing fortunes, the more they can bend political and economic frameworks to their preferences, ensuring that they become richer still. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be identified.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to 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 deprivation Gates says concerns him and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by holding down wages, racking up rents, busting trade unions and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Research Findings

A notable research in political science publications, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from most people. The wealthy respondents in the study, sharply different from average people, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were much more inclined to demand 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.

Policy Impact

So whose views prevail? The small elite or the vast population? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, 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

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. If Gates included this, he'd have to recognize that an important foundation of his argument is unstable: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Of course it helps that wind, solar and other green technologies are becoming radically cheaper than conventional power. But Trump and like-minded politicians are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

Partly as a result, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This might explain, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, in fact, increased.

Cognitive Considerations

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Political Calculations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. 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!!!"

Background Information

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on the issue, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, echoing petroleum industry talking points (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) well after their refutation. He has spread confusion and misinformation, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the objective of Sri Lanka's catastrophic restriction on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

More Challenging Facts

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and quickly deteriorate, the impact on humanity, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (a subject he consistently omits), 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 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