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

Let's address the central dilemma: The Microsoft founder is a politics denier. While he was slow to accept it, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about political realities. His new piece on climate, released recently, approaches climate change without political context. He composes text ignoring political influence, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Central Claim

His key position states that funds are very limited, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should redirect resources from "short-term pollution targets" towards environmental adjustment and spending on poverty and disease.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but that's not because of some natural law, some implacable truth about human society. The reason is elite influence has declared war on government social programs, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and severe reductions in assistance funding of other countries. Austerity is a political choice. The choice to implement it comes from governments bowing to the wishes of billionaire class.

Available Resources

There are truckloads of money available. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the 10 richest US billionaires grew by $698bn during the previous twelve months. That money alone, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is nearly tenfold the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of the world's money into their pockets? What prevents redistribution through effective taxation? The explanation involves their transformation of financial influence into governmental control. The richer they become, the stronger their capacity to shape the state and economic system to their desires, ensuring that they become richer still. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about ways and locations for more resources for both climate action and poverty relief could be found.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for corporate executives in the capital.

Wealth Inequality Relationship

A clear connection exists between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the wealth he fails to mention. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the share of assets owned by the top 0.1%. While this might not be Gates's own business model, by holding down wages, racking up rents, undermining worker collectives and securing tax reductions and budget decreases, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Study Results

A notable research in Perspectives on Politics, one of the rare examinations of this private sphere, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the great majority. The multimillionaires it interviewed, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, considered fiscal shortfalls as critical of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were much more inclined to demand that social security and federal healthcare should be cut, and far less likely to believe that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be increased oversight of energy firms, financial institutions and insurance providers. They were fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Political Influence

So whose views prevail? The small elite or the vast population? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than ordinary people. What about currently? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Omissions and Assumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: throughout thousands of words, Trump goes unmentioned. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: decreasing expenses for eco-friendly innovations automatically creates ecological advancement. Naturally, it's beneficial that renewable energy costs are dropping significantly than conventional power. But Trump and like-minded politicians are employing every method to hinder the change.

In part due to these factors, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This could be why, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its oil and gas financial assets have, actually grown.

Psychological Factors

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he might be literally incapable of thinking about 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 acquiring huge amounts of money is like taking a blow to the head. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Tactical Elements

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his article seems designed as appeasement toward Trump. Trump certainly took it that way: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This required bravery, and we appreciate it. MAGA!!!"

Background Information

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on the issue, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, repeating traditional energy arguments (renewable energy could lower carbon output only with massive expenses) significantly following their debunking. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, like the baseless statement in his latest article 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. Thus, here's another difficult reality he carefully avoids. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and suddenly collapse, the impact on humanity, let alone the survival of other life forms (a topic he fails, as usual, to mention), would destroy the smooth and steady progress he foresees. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but through rapid shifts, the potential effects on human welfare are very difficult to forecast. His argument that we should align all funding to current "data-based analysis" of improvements in human welfare, even if it seems logical, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest