🔗 Share this article

LWe must start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now recognizes environmental science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about political realities. His recent article on climate, released recently, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He composes text ignoring political influence, and no such thing as billionaires.

Primary Argument

His main contention is that funds are very limited, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should direct money away from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate resilience and spending on poverty and disease.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but that's not because of some natural law, an unavoidable reality of communities. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on benign state spending, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and substantial decreases in support money of additional nations. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The selection to enforce it originates with authorities yielding to the demands of billionaire class.

Available Resources

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Just after Gates published his new missive, research showed that the total wealth of the top ten US fortune holders grew by $698bn during the previous twelve months. These funds independently, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is approximately ten times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much 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. With growing fortunes, the greater their ability to influence government and financial structures to their desires, securing ongoing financial growth. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate action and poverty relief could be located.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for corporate executives in the capital.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

There's a direct link between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the riches he overlooks. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by holding down wages, increasing housing costs, busting trade unions and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Study Results

A remarkable study in Perspectives on Politics, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the general population. The multimillionaires it interviewed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, viewed government debt as paramount 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 significantly less prone to accept that unemployed people merit reasonable生活质量, or that there should be stricter rules for petroleum corporations, banking entities and medical coverage companies. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Political Influence

Which perspectives dominate? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than regular individuals. What about currently? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Omissions and Assumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. Were Gates to do so, 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 conventional power. But Trump and similar demagogues are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

In part due to these factors, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This potentially clarifies why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, actually grown.

Psychological Factors

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Strategic Considerations

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." Gates has confessed his total mistake. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has always been completely WRONG on climate matters, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, reciting fossil fuel claims (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) well after their refutation. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

More Challenging Facts

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and suddenly collapse, the impact on humanity, let alone the survival of other life forms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but through sudden changes of state, 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, while it might sound rational, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest