I Wish We Could Ignore Bill Gates on the Climate Crisis. But He's a Billionaire, So We Must Listen.

LWe must begin with the fundamental problem: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he lives in flat, embarrassing denial about the realities of power. His new piece on climate, published last week, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He composes text ignoring political influence, and no such thing as billionaires.

Primary Argument

His main contention is that money is insufficient, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should redirect resources from "short-term pollution targets" towards climate "adaptation" and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but it's not caused by inevitable rules, an unavoidable reality of communities. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on government social programs, leading to the destruction of USAID and substantial decreases in support money of various states. Austerity is a political choice. The choice to implement it comes from leaders submitting to the preferences of the ultra-rich.

Available Resources

Substantial financial resources are present. Just after Gates published his new missive, research showed that the total wealth of the 10 richest US billionaires grew by $698bn in the past year. This amount by itself, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is approximately ten times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate 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 stronger their capacity to shape the state and economic system to their desires, ensuring that they become richer still. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be found.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for industry figures in Washington.

The Poverty-Wealth Connection

A clear connection exists between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about and the riches he overlooks. In the US, homelessness is breaking records, and so is the portion of wealth controlled by the wealthiest fraction. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by keeping pay low, driving up rental prices, undermining worker collectives and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.

Study Results

A significant investigation in academic political journals, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the great majority. The wealthy respondents in the study, 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 welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, and significantly less prone to accept that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be stricter rules for petroleum corporations, banking entities and medical coverage companies. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Governmental Access

So whose views prevail? 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.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to admit that another key premise is questionable: lower prices for sustainable technology inevitably produces environmental improvement. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than fossil fuels. But The former president and comparable figures are taking all possible actions to block the shift.

In part due to these factors, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. 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.

Mental Aspects

Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Even though billionaires present research challenges, 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, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.

Political Calculations

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has always been completely WRONG on this topic, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, repeating traditional energy arguments (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) well after their refutation. He has spread confusion and misinformation, such as the groundless assertion in his new essay that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

More Challenging Facts

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 (a subject he consistently omits), would eliminate the gradual advancement he predicts. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, but through rapid shifts, the possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. His position that all resources should follow existing data-driven assessments of human betterment, while it might sound rational, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest