🔗 Share this article

LWe must begin with the fundamental problem: Bill Gates is a politics denier. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about how politics works. His new piece on climate, shared days ago, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

The Main Contention

His main contention is that funds are very limited, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should redirect resources from "near-term emissions goals" towards climate resilience and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but that's not because of some natural law, some implacable truth about human society. The reason is elite influence has declared war on public welfare investments, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and severe reductions in assistance funding of additional nations. Austerity is a political choice. The selection to enforce it originates with authorities yielding to the demands of extremely wealthy individuals.

Current Funds

There are truckloads of money available. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the top ten US fortune holders increased by nearly $700 billion in the past year. That money alone, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is approximately ten times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of the world's money into their pockets? Why can't society reclaim it through effective taxation? The answer is their translation of economic power into political power. The richer they become, the greater their ability to influence government and financial structures to their will, ensuring that they become richer still. 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.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for business leaders in Washington DC.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

There's a direct link between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by keeping pay low, driving up rental prices, undermining worker collectives and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Investigation Conclusions

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 general population. The rich participants surveyed, sharply different from average people, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were significantly more prone to argue that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, and significantly less prone to accept 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.

Political Influence

So whose views prevail? The small elite or the vast population? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than ordinary people. And now? The current reality seems obvious.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: 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. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than fossil fuels. But Trump and like-minded politicians are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

In part due to these factors, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This could be why, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, actually grown.

Cognitive Considerations

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. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Political Calculations

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Gates has confessed his total mistake. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

Gates has always been completely WRONG on the issue, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, reciting fossil fuel claims (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) well after their refutation. He has spread confusion and misinformation, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Further Difficult Realities

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and rapidly fail, the effects on human life, let alone the survival of other life forms (an issue he regularly neglects), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but through rapid shifts, 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, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest