🔗 Share this article

LWe must start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder is a politics denier. While he was slow to accept it, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about the realities of power. His new piece on climate, released recently, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and no such thing as billionaires.

The Main Contention

His primary argument suggests that financial resources are scarce, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should direct money away from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate resilience and spending on poverty and disease.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but this isn't due to universal principles, some implacable truth about human society. This results from wealthy interests attacking on government social programs, leading to the destruction of USAID and severe reductions in assistance funding of other countries. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The decision to impose it is driven by leaders submitting to the preferences of extremely wealthy individuals.

Available Resources

There are truckloads of money available. Just after Gates published his new missive, data indicated that the combined assets of the 10 richest US billionaires grew by $698bn over the last year. This amount by itself, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is almost 10 times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of the world's money into their pockets? What prevents redistribution through proper tax policies? The answer is their translation of financial influence into governmental control. The richer they become, the greater their ability to influence political and economic frameworks to their will, securing ongoing financial growth. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be identified.

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

Rich-Poor Dynamic

There's a direct link between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the riches he overlooks. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by holding down wages, increasing housing costs, undermining worker collectives and winning tax and spending cuts, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Investigation Conclusions

A remarkable study in political science publications, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from the great majority. The rich participants surveyed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were significantly more prone to argue that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and far less likely to believe that the unemployed should have a "decent standard of living", or that there should be increased oversight of energy firms, financial institutions and insurance providers. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Political Influence

What opinions win out? The few wealthy or the many citizens? 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. And now? The current reality seems obvious.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to admit that another key premise is questionable: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than conventional power. But Trump and like-minded politicians are employing every method to hinder the change.

To some degree because of this, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This could be 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.

Mental Aspects

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. 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. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Tactical Elements

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump certainly took it that way: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." Gates has confessed his total mistake. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

Gates has always been completely WRONG on climate matters, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, echoing petroleum industry talking points (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 chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Further Difficult Realities

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. 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 (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, but via abrupt transitions, the conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. His claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, even if it seems logical, creates significant illogic when confronting systemic transformation, {prompting us to ignore the greatest