I Wish We Could Ignore the Tech Mogul on the Environmental Emergency. But He's a Billionaire, So We Can't.

Let's address the central dilemma: Bill Gates 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 the realities of power. His latest essay on climate, released recently, approaches climate change without political context. He writes as if there were no such thing as political power, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

Central Claim

His main contention is that financial resources are scarce, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should shift funding from "immediate carbon reduction objectives" towards climate "adaptation" and spending on poverty and disease.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but that's not because of some natural law, an unchangeable fact of civilization. The reason is elite influence has declared war on government social programs, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of other countries. Budget cuts represent political decisions. The choice to implement it comes from leaders submitting to the preferences of billionaire class.

Existing Wealth

There are truckloads of money available. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the 10 richest US billionaires grew by $698bn in the past year. That money alone, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is almost 10 times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of the world's money into their pockets? And why can't we get it back through proper tax policies? The solution lies in their conversion of economic power into political power. As their wealth increases, the stronger their capacity to shape political and economic frameworks to their preferences, securing ongoing financial growth. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate action and poverty relief could be identified.

'His essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for industry figures in Washington.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

An obvious relationship appears between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the riches he overlooks. 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 suppressing salaries, racking up rents, weakening labor organizations and winning tax and spending cuts, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Study Results

A notable research in Perspectives on Politics, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that billionaires maintain completely separate political opinions from most people. The rich participants surveyed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were significantly more prone to argue that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, and significantly less prone to accept 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 strongly against wealth redistribution.

Policy Impact

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? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: 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: 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.

To some degree because of this, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This could be why, 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, in fact, increased.

Psychological Factors

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. 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, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Tactical Elements

But perhaps there's also calculation here: 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. The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

Gates has always been completely WRONG on climate matters, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, reciting fossil fuel claims (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) long after they've been discredited. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".

Additional Tough Truths

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and suddenly collapse, the effects on human life, not to mention the existence of other species (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, although it may appear reasonable, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest