🔗 Share this article

LWe must start with the core issue: Bill Gates is a politics denier. While he was slow to accept it, he now recognizes environmental science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about political realities. His recent article on climate, shared days ago, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He composes text ignoring political influence, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Central Claim

His key position states that funds are very limited, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should direct money away from "short-term pollution targets" towards climate resilience and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but this isn't due to universal principles, 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 substantial decreases in support money of other countries. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The selection to enforce it originates with leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Existing Wealth

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Just after Gates published his new missive, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of America's wealthiest ten individuals expanded by hundreds of billions over the last year. That money alone, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is approximately ten times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of global wealth into personal accounts? What prevents redistribution through proper tax policies? The solution lies in their conversion of financial influence into governmental control. As their wealth increases, the greater their ability to influence the state and economic system to their desires, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be found.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for business leaders in Washington DC.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

A clear connection exists between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by holding down wages, increasing housing costs, 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 academic political journals, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the general population. The rich participants surveyed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, saw budget deficits as the most important 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 fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Governmental Access

Which perspectives dominate? The tiny minority or the great majority? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than ordinary people. What about currently? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: 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 fossil fuels. But The former president and comparable figures are employing every method to hinder the change.

In part due to these factors, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This could be why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, actually grown.

Psychological Factors

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": 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. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

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: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." Gates has confessed his total mistake. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on this topic, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, repeating traditional energy arguments (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) long after they've been discredited. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, 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. 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, 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 via abrupt transitions, the possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. His claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, although it may appear reasonable, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest