I Wish We Could Dismiss the Tech Mogul on the Environmental Emergency. But His Wealth Matters, So We Can't.

LWe must address the central dilemma: The Microsoft founder denies political realities. Though he came to it late, he now recognizes environmental science. But he exists in stark, awkward denial about how politics works. His latest essay 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.

Central Claim

His primary argument suggests that financial resources are scarce, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should redirect resources from "short-term pollution targets" towards climate "adaptation" and investing in poverty reduction and healthcare.

Certainly, money for worthy projects is limited, but this isn't due to universal principles, an unchangeable fact of civilization. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on government social programs, causing the dismantling of aid agencies and drastic cuts to the aid budgets of additional nations. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The decision to impose it is driven by authorities yielding to the demands of billionaire class.

Existing Wealth

There are truckloads of money available. Shortly following Gates' latest publication, research showed that the total wealth of the top ten US fortune holders grew by $698bn in the past year. That money alone, the increase in a handful of billionaires' net worth, is approximately ten times the yearly funding needed to eliminate severe poverty worldwide. Through what means did they accumulate of global wealth into personal accounts? Why can't society reclaim it through appropriate revenue collection? The explanation involves their transformation of economic power into political power. The richer they become, the stronger their capacity to shape the state and economic system to their desires, securing ongoing financial growth. But the billionaire mentions nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both environmental measures and economic assistance could be located.

'His writing appears primarily as reconciliation with Donald Trump.' Gates photographed with the former president for industry figures in Washington.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

There's a direct link between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, unhoused populations are reaching new highs, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Although this may not describe Gates' personal approach, by keeping pay low, increasing housing costs, busting trade unions and winning tax and spending cuts, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Study Results

A remarkable study in academic political journals, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the great majority. The wealthy respondents in the study, completely unlike ordinary citizens, saw budget deficits as the most important of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were far more likely to insist that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, and significantly less prone to accept that jobless individuals deserve adequate living conditions, or that there should be more regulation of oil companies, banks and health insurers. They were vehemently anti-taxation and 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. What about currently? The situation hardly requires explanation.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

That's another telling absence in Bill Gates's essay: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: 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 traditional energy sources. But The former president and comparable figures are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

In part due to these factors, 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, truly expanded.

Cognitive Considerations

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. I mean that, judging by his remarkable silences on the issue, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a profound incapacity to see the world from other people's point of view. While the ultra-rich are notoriously hard to study, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Riches appear to disrupt specific mental processes, especially those involving compassion and viewpoint.

Tactical Elements

Yet, political maneuvering could be present: his writing appears primarily as reconciliation with the former president. Trump definitely understood it as such: "I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax. Gates has confessed his total mistake. 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, even if not for the explanations Trump provides. He has consistently lagged behind the curve, repeating traditional energy arguments (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) significantly following their debunking. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, 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".

More Challenging Facts

Gates names his article Three Challenging Environmental Facts. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and quickly deteriorate, the effects on human life, 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. Given that climate alteration may not happen incrementally and steadily, but through sudden changes of state, the potential effects on human welfare are very difficult to forecast. His position that all resources should follow existing data-driven assessments of human betterment, although it may appear reasonable, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest