It Would Be Nice to Ignore Bill Gates on the Climate Crisis. But His Wealth Matters, So We Can't.

LWe must begin with the fundamental problem: Bill Gates denies political realities. While he was slow to accept it, he now recognizes environmental science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about political realities. His recent article on climate, released recently, approaches climate change without political context. He composes text ignoring political influence, and no such thing as billionaires.

The Main Contention

His main contention is that funds are very limited, so the participants in the upcoming climate meeting in Brazil should direct money away from "near-term emissions goals" 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, some implacable truth about human society. The reason is elite influence has declared war on benign state spending, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and substantial decreases in support money of various states. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The selection to enforce it originates with authorities yielding to the demands of extremely wealthy individuals.

Existing Wealth

There are truckloads of money available. Just after Gates published his new missive, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the top ten US fortune holders grew by $698bn in the past year. That money alone, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is nearly tenfold the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of economic resources into private hands? And why can't we get it back through effective taxation? The solution lies in their conversion of wealth into policy-making authority. As their wealth increases, the greater their ability to influence government and financial structures to their desires, ensuring that they become richer still. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate solutions and hardship alleviation could be located.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' The billionaire alongside Trump at an exclusive meal for business leaders in Washington DC.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

An obvious relationship appears between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by suppressing salaries, increasing housing costs, weakening labor organizations and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

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 environmental collapse as unimportant. 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 increased oversight of energy firms, financial institutions and insurance providers. They were vehemently anti-taxation and redistribution.

Political Influence

What opinions win out? 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 regular individuals. And now? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Omissions and Assumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. Should the billionaire address this, he'd have to recognize that an important foundation of his argument is unstable: 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 fossil fuels. But The former president and comparable figures are employing every method to hinder the change.

To some degree because of this, oil and gas continue generating substantial profits. This potentially clarifies 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. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he may actually be unable to conceptualize it. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": 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 obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Political Calculations

However, strategic thinking might also be involved: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump certainly took it that way: "Our victory over climate misinformation is complete." The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on this topic, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, echoing petroleum industry talking points (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) significantly following their debunking. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the purpose of Sri Lanka's disastrous ban on chemical fertilizers involved emission reduction.

Additional Tough Truths

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and rapidly fail, the effects on human life, let alone the survival of other life forms (a subject he consistently omits), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but via abrupt transitions, 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