🔗 Share this article

LWe must start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. While he was slow to accept it, he now recognizes environmental science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about political realities. His recent article on climate, shared days ago, discusses the topic as though politics didn't matter. He composes text ignoring political influence, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Central Claim

His key position states that money is insufficient, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should direct money away from "short-term pollution targets" towards environmental adjustment and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but that's not because of some natural law, an unchangeable fact of civilization. This results from wealthy interests attacking on public welfare investments, leading to the destruction of USAID and severe reductions in assistance funding of various states. Austerity is a political choice. The choice to implement it comes from leaders submitting to the preferences of the ultra-rich.

Existing Wealth

Substantial financial resources are present. Just after Gates published his new missive, research showed that the total wealth of the top ten US fortune holders expanded by hundreds of billions over the last year. That money alone, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is approximately ten times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of the world's money into their pockets? And why can't we get it back through effective taxation? The answer is their translation of economic power into political power. As their wealth increases, the greater their ability to influence the state and economic system to their preferences, ensuring that they become richer still. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both climate action and poverty relief could be identified.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for business leaders in Washington DC.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

There's a direct link 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. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by keeping pay low, racking up rents, busting trade unions and winning tax and spending cuts, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Investigation Conclusions

A notable research in Perspectives on Politics, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that the ultra-rich have radically different political views from the general population. The rich participants surveyed, sharply different from average people, 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 much less inclined to think that the unemployed should have a "decent standard of living", or that there should be stricter rules for petroleum corporations, banking entities and medical coverage companies. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Policy Impact

What opinions win out? The small elite or the vast population? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than average citizens. How about today? The current reality seems obvious.

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. Should the billionaire address this, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: 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 The former president and comparable figures are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

To some degree because of this, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This might explain, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, in fact, increased.

Mental Aspects

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, extrapolating from research into how gaining wealth and status affects cognition could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Tactical Elements

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: 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. The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has historically been mistaken on climate matters, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, echoing petroleum industry talking points (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) significantly following their debunking. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Additional Tough Truths

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, let alone the survival of other life forms (an issue he regularly neglects), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, but through rapid shifts, the conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. 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