I Wish We Could Ignore Bill Gates on the Climate Crisis. But His Wealth Matters, So We Can't.

LWe must start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. While he was slow to accept it, he now acknowledges climate change facts. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about how politics works. His new piece on climate, shared days ago, treats the issue as if it existed in a political vacuum. He composes text ignoring political influence, and pretending massive fortunes aren't relevant.

The Main Contention

His key position states that funds are very limited, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should redirect resources from "near-term emissions goals" towards climate resilience and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but this isn't due to universal principles, some implacable truth about human society. The reason is elite influence has declared war on public welfare investments, resulting in the elimination of development assistance and substantial decreases in support money of additional nations. Austerity is a political choice. The selection to enforce it originates with leaders submitting to the preferences of the ultra-rich.

Available Resources

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, data indicated that the combined assets of America's wealthiest ten individuals grew by $698bn over the last year. These funds independently, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is almost 10 times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. How have they managed to channel so much of global wealth into personal accounts? What prevents redistribution through proper tax policies? The answer is their translation of wealth into policy-making authority. With growing fortunes, the stronger their capacity to shape government and financial structures to their desires, ensuring that they become richer still. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be identified.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for corporate executives in the capital.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

A clear connection exists between the poverty Gates claims to care so much about 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 keeping pay low, increasing housing costs, undermining worker collectives and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, the ultra-rich thrive on impoverishing other people.

Research Findings

A notable research in political science publications, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from most people. The wealthy respondents in the study, in stark contrast to mere earthlings, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were significantly more prone to argue that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, and far less likely to believe 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 fiercely opposed to redistribution.

Policy Impact

Which perspectives dominate? The tiny minority or the great majority? Even though the investigation happened under Obama, it found that the very rich had far more access to politicians and officials than ordinary people. How about today? The current reality seems obvious.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. 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. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than fossil fuels. But Trump and similar demagogues are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

In part due to these factors, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This might explain, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, actually grown.

Cognitive Considerations

For Gates, challenging billionaire influence might seem impossible. It's not merely incompatible with his outlook. Considering his significant avoidance of this subject, he could genuinely find it impossible to consider. Perhaps this is a symptom of "billionaire brain": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, inferring from investigations about money's effect on mental processes could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Tactical Elements

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. Trump definitely understood it as such: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." The billionaire has acknowledged his complete error. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

The billionaire has consistently been incorrect on climate matters, though not for the reasons Trump imagines. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, repeating traditional energy arguments (green technologies could reduce global CO2 emissions only at a "beyond astronomical" cost) long after they've been discredited. He has spread confusion and misinformation, including the unsupported claim in his recent writing that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition 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 quickly deteriorate, the consequences for people, let alone the survival of other life forms (a subject he consistently omits), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Since ecological transformation probably won't occur slowly and predictably, 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, even if it seems logical, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest