🔗 Share this article

Let's address the central dilemma: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about the realities of power. His latest essay on climate, released recently, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and no such thing as billionaires.

Central Claim

His key position states that money is insufficient, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should redirect resources from "short-term pollution targets" 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, some implacable truth about human society. This results from wealthy interests attacking on benign state spending, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of various states. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The decision to impose it is driven by authorities yielding to the demands of the ultra-rich.

Current Funds

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 grew by $698bn over the last year. These funds independently, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is nearly tenfold 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 proper tax policies? The answer is their translation of wealth into policy-making authority. With growing fortunes, the greater their ability to influence government and financial structures to their will, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be found.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump.' The billionaire alongside Trump at an exclusive meal for industry figures in Washington.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

A clear connection exists between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, 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, undermining worker collectives and winning tax and spending cuts, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Research Findings

A significant investigation in Perspectives on Politics, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from the great majority. The wealthy respondents in the study, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were much more inclined to demand that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, 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 vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Political Influence

What opinions win out? 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 ordinary people. What about currently? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. Were Gates to do so, 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 Trump and like-minded politicians are employing every method to hinder the change.

In part due to these factors, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This potentially clarifies why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, truly expanded.

Cognitive Considerations

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. While the ultra-rich are notoriously hard to study, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that acquiring huge amounts of money is like taking a blow to the head. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Political Calculations

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his article seems designed as appeasement toward 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 always been completely WRONG on climate matters, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, reciting fossil fuel claims (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) well after their refutation. He has spread confusion and misinformation, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Additional Tough Truths

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and suddenly collapse, the consequences for people, not to mention the existence of other species (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but through sudden changes of state, 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, while it might sound rational, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest