🔗 Share this article

Let's begin with the fundamental problem: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about the realities of power. His new piece on climate, released recently, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and no such thing as billionaires.

Central Claim

His key position states that financial resources are scarce, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should direct money away from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards environmental adjustment and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but this isn't due to universal principles, an unchangeable fact of civilization. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on benign state spending, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and severe reductions in assistance funding of additional nations. Austerity is a political choice. The selection to enforce it originates with governments bowing to the wishes of the ultra-rich.

Existing Wealth

There are truckloads of money available. Just after Gates published his new missive, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of America's wealthiest ten individuals expanded by hundreds of billions during the previous twelve months. This amount by itself, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, 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 proper tax policies? The explanation involves their transformation of financial influence into governmental control. With growing fortunes, the greater their ability to influence government and financial structures to their preferences, securing ongoing financial growth. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be located.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for corporate executives in the capital.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

A clear connection exists 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. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, 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 remarkable study in academic political journals, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from the great majority. The rich participants surveyed, completely unlike ordinary citizens, 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 far less likely to believe 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 vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Policy Impact

What opinions win out? 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 current reality seems obvious.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. Should the billionaire address this, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: reductions in the cost of new green technologies lead inexorably to environmental progress. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than traditional energy sources. But The former president and comparable figures are employing every method to hinder the change.

Partly as a result, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This potentially clarifies why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, actually grown.

Cognitive Considerations

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, 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. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition 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 essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "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

Gates has always been completely WRONG on this topic, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, reciting fossil fuel claims (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) significantly following their debunking. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Further Difficult Realities

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and quickly deteriorate, the effects on human life, not to mention the existence of other species (a subject he consistently omits), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but through sudden changes of state, the potential effects on human welfare are very difficult to forecast. His argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, although it may appear reasonable, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest