🔗 Share this article

LWe must start with the core issue: Bill Gates is a politics denier. Though he came to it late, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about how politics works. His recent article on climate, released recently, 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 primary argument suggests that financial resources are scarce, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should redirect resources from "short-term pollution targets" towards environmental adjustment and spending on poverty and disease.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but this isn't due to universal principles, an unchangeable fact of civilization. The reason is elite influence has declared war on public welfare investments, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and substantial decreases in support money of other countries. Austerity is a political choice. The choice to implement it comes from leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Existing Wealth

Substantial financial resources are present. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, research showed that the total wealth of the 10 richest US billionaires increased by nearly $700 billion during the previous twelve months. This amount by itself, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is almost 10 times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of economic resources into private hands? Why can't society reclaim it through proper tax policies? The answer is their translation of wealth into policy-making authority. The richer they become, the more they can bend government and financial structures to their preferences, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both climate action and poverty relief could be located.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' The billionaire alongside Trump at an exclusive meal for corporate executives in the capital.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

There's a direct link between the deprivation Gates says concerns him 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, racking up rents, weakening labor organizations and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Study Results

A remarkable study in political science publications, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the great majority. The wealthy respondents in the study, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were far more likely to insist 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 more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Governmental Access

Which perspectives dominate? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than regular individuals. And now? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Omissions and Assumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. 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. Of course it helps that wind, solar and other green technologies are becoming radically cheaper than traditional energy sources. But Trump and similar demagogues are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

To some degree because of this, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This potentially clarifies why, despite Gates's claim that his foundation had divested all its "direct holdings in oil and gas companies" in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings 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. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. While the ultra-rich are notoriously hard to study, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that acquiring huge amounts of money is like taking a blow to the head. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Strategic Considerations

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

Gates has always been completely WRONG on this topic, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, 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, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Further Difficult Realities

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and quickly deteriorate, the impact on humanity, not to mention the existence of other species (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but via abrupt transitions, the conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. His position that all resources should follow existing data-driven assessments of human betterment, even if it seems logical, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest