🔗 Share this article

Let's start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. While he was slow to accept it, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about the realities of power. His new piece on climate, shared days ago, approaches climate change without political context. He composes text ignoring political influence, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Central Claim

His key position states that funds are very limited, so the representatives at the environmental conference in Brazil should shift funding from "near-term emissions goals" towards climate resilience and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Admittedly, resources for positive initiatives are insufficient, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unavoidable reality of communities. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on public welfare investments, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and severe reductions in assistance funding of various states. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The selection to enforce it originates with leaders submitting to the preferences of billionaire class.

Current Funds

There are truckloads of money available. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, data indicated that the combined assets of the 10 richest US billionaires increased by nearly $700 billion during the previous twelve months. That money alone, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is almost 10 times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of the world's money into their pockets? What prevents redistribution through effective taxation? The answer is their translation of economic power into political power. As their wealth increases, the more they can bend political and economic frameworks to their desires, securing ongoing financial growth. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds 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 industry figures in Washington.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

An obvious relationship appears 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. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by suppressing salaries, increasing housing costs, weakening labor organizations and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Study Results

A remarkable study in Perspectives on Politics, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the great majority. The wealthy respondents in the study, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical 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 significantly less prone to accept 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.

Governmental Access

Which perspectives dominate? The tiny minority or the great majority? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than average citizens. What about currently? The current reality seems obvious.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: 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: 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 traditional energy sources. But Trump and like-minded politicians are employing every method to hinder the change.

In part due to these factors, 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 fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, actually grown.

Mental Aspects

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition could suggest that acquiring huge amounts of money is like taking a blow to the head. 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. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Gates has confessed his total mistake. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Previous Positions

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 (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) significantly following their debunking. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

More Challenging Facts

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. If, as now seems likely, crucial Earth systems cross tipping points and rapidly fail, the consequences for people, not to mention the existence of other species (a subject he consistently omits), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but through rapid shifts, the conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. His argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, even if it seems logical, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest