🔗 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 recognizes environmental science. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about political realities. His recent article on climate, released recently, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He composes text ignoring political influence, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Central Claim

His key position states that financial resources are scarce, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should shift funding from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate "adaptation" and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but this isn't due to universal principles, some implacable truth about human society. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on government social programs, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of additional nations. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The decision to impose it is driven by governments bowing to the wishes of extremely wealthy individuals.

Current Funds

Substantial financial resources are present. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, data indicated that the combined assets of the top ten US fortune holders grew by $698bn in the past year. This amount by itself, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is almost 10 times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of global wealth into personal accounts? Why can't society reclaim it through appropriate revenue collection? The explanation involves their transformation of financial influence into governmental control. The richer they become, the more they can bend government and financial structures to their desires, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be identified.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for business leaders in Washington DC.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

A clear connection exists between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about 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. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by suppressing salaries, increasing housing costs, busting trade unions and winning tax and spending cuts, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Investigation Conclusions

A remarkable study in Perspectives on Politics, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from most people. The rich participants surveyed, completely unlike ordinary citizens, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. 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 increased oversight of energy firms, financial institutions and insurance providers. They were fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Political Influence

So whose views prevail? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that billionaires maintained closer relationships with government figures than regular individuals. How about today? The current reality seems obvious.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: decreasing expenses for eco-friendly innovations automatically creates ecological advancement. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than traditional energy sources. But Trump and similar demagogues are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

To some degree because of this, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This might explain, despite Gates's claim that his foundation had divested all its "direct holdings in oil and gas companies" 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 might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. 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.

Strategic Considerations

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump certainly took it that way: "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!!!"

Previous Positions

Gates has always been completely WRONG on this topic, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, reciting fossil fuel claims (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) significantly following their debunking. He has spread confusion and misinformation, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the objective of Sri Lanka's catastrophic restriction on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Additional Tough Truths

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and suddenly collapse, the impact on humanity, not to mention the existence of other species (an issue he regularly neglects), 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 argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, while it might sound rational, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest