It Would Be Nice to Ignore the Tech Mogul on the Environmental Emergency. But He's a Billionaire, So We Must Listen.

Let's begin with the fundamental problem: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. Though he came to it late, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about political realities. His new piece on climate, published last week, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

The Main Contention

His primary argument suggests 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 spending on poverty and disease.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but that's not because of some natural law, an unavoidable reality of communities. The reason is elite influence has declared war on benign state spending, leading to the destruction of USAID and severe reductions in assistance funding of other countries. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The choice to implement it comes from governments bowing to the wishes of billionaire class.

Available Resources

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Just after Gates published his new missive, research showed that the total wealth of the top ten US fortune holders increased by nearly $700 billion over the last year. That money alone, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is almost 10 times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of global wealth into personal accounts? And why can't we get it back through proper tax policies? The solution lies in their conversion of economic power into political power. The richer they become, the greater their ability to influence political and economic frameworks to their preferences, ensuring that they become richer still. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both climate action and poverty relief could be found.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for business leaders in Washington DC.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

A clear connection exists between the economic hardship Gates professes to address and the riches he overlooks. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by holding down wages, increasing housing costs, busting trade unions and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Research Findings

A notable research in political science publications, 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, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and climate breakdown as the least. They were much more inclined to demand that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, and far less likely to believe that unemployed people merit reasonable生活质量, or that there should be stricter rules for petroleum corporations, banking entities and medical coverage companies. They were vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Political Influence

So whose views prevail? The tiny minority or the great majority? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than average citizens. And now? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Omissions and Assumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. If Gates included this, he'd have to recognize that an important foundation of his argument is unstable: decreasing expenses for eco-friendly innovations automatically creates ecological advancement. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than conventional power. But The former president and comparable figures are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

Partly as a result, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This potentially clarifies why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its investments in traditional energy securities have, in fact, increased.

Mental Aspects

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. I don't mean only that it clashes with his worldview. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Tactical Elements

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. Trump certainly took it that way: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

Gates has always been completely WRONG on climate matters, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, echoing petroleum industry talking points (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) well after their refutation. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

More Challenging Facts

The billionaire titles his piece Three Difficult Climate Realities. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and suddenly collapse, the consequences for people, let alone the survival of other life forms (a subject he consistently omits), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. 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, although it may appear reasonable, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest