🔗 Share this article

Let's begin with the fundamental problem: Bill Gates ignores the role of politics. Though he came to it late, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about how politics works. His recent article on climate, shared days ago, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

The Main Contention

His primary argument suggests that funds are very limited, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should direct money away from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards environmental adjustment and spending on poverty and disease.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but this isn't due to universal principles, some implacable truth about human society. This results from wealthy interests attacking on public welfare investments, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and substantial decreases in support money of other countries. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The selection to enforce it originates with authorities yielding to the demands of extremely wealthy individuals.

Existing Wealth

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, research showed that the total wealth of America's wealthiest ten individuals increased by nearly $700 billion over the last year. This amount by itself, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is approximately ten times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of the world's money into their pockets? What prevents redistribution through appropriate revenue collection? The solution lies in their conversion of wealth into policy-making authority. With growing fortunes, the more they can bend the state and economic system to their will, ensuring that they become richer still. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be found.

'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.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

An obvious relationship appears between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by suppressing salaries, driving up rental prices, undermining worker collectives and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Study Results

A notable research in academic political journals, among limited studies accessing this exclusive domain, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from most people. The multimillionaires it interviewed, sharply different from average people, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were significantly more prone to argue that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and significantly less prone to accept that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were strongly against wealth 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 regular individuals. What about currently? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. If Gates included this, 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 like-minded politicians are employing every method to hinder the change.

To some degree because of this, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This could be why, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, actually grown.

Cognitive Considerations

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": 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. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Strategic Considerations

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. 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 climate matters, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, repeating traditional energy arguments (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) significantly following their debunking. He has spread confusion and misinformation, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

Additional Tough Truths

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Therefore, here's another challenging fact he deliberately overlooks. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and rapidly fail, the impact on humanity, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (an issue he regularly neglects), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but through rapid shifts, 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, although it may appear reasonable, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest