🔗 Share this article

LWe must address the central dilemma: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. Though he came to it late, he now recognizes environmental science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about the realities of power. His recent article on climate, released recently, approaches climate change without political context. He composes text ignoring political influence, and no such thing as billionaires.

Primary Argument

His key position states that financial resources are scarce, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should redirect resources from "near-term emissions goals" towards environmental adjustment and spending on poverty and disease.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but that's not because of some natural law, an unchangeable fact of civilization. This results from wealthy interests attacking on benign state spending, leading to the destruction of USAID and substantial decreases in support money of other countries. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The decision to impose it is driven by authorities yielding to the demands of the ultra-rich.

Existing Wealth

Substantial financial resources are present. Just after Gates published his new missive, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the top ten US fortune holders grew by $698bn during the previous twelve months. That money alone, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is nearly tenfold 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 explanation involves their transformation of wealth into policy-making authority. With growing fortunes, the greater their ability to influence government and financial structures to their preferences, 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 found.

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

Rich-Poor Dynamic

There's a direct link between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, 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, weakening labor organizations and winning tax and spending cuts, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Research Findings

A notable research in political science publications, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from most people. The wealthy respondents in the study, 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 social security and federal healthcare should be cut, 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 vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Governmental Access

What opinions win out? The tiny minority or the great majority? Though the study was conducted in the Obama years, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than average citizens. What about currently? The current reality seems obvious.

Omissions and Assumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. Were Gates to do so, 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. 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 doing everything they can to impede the transition.

To some degree because of this, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This potentially clarifies why, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, actually grown.

Cognitive Considerations

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": 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.

Political Calculations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. 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, repeating traditional energy arguments (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) long after they've been discredited. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition 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 suddenly collapse, 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. 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 position that all resources should follow existing data-driven assessments of human betterment, even if it seems logical, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest