Let's start with the core issue: The Microsoft founder ignores the role of politics. While he was slow to accept it, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about the realities of power. His new piece on climate, published last week, approaches climate change without political context. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.
His main contention is that financial resources are scarce, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should shift funding from "near-term emissions goals" towards environmental adjustment and allocating funds for economic hardship and illness.
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. This results from wealthy interests attacking on public welfare investments, leading to the destruction of USAID and substantial decreases in support money of other countries. Austerity is a political choice. The choice to implement it comes from leaders submitting to the preferences of the ultra-rich.
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 over the last year. These funds independently, the growth in ten individuals' fortunes, is approximately ten times the money needed each year to stop deep deprivation worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of economic resources into private hands? Why can't society reclaim it through effective taxation? The answer is their translation of financial influence into governmental control. With growing fortunes, the greater their ability to influence the state and economic system to their preferences, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But the philanthropist discusses nothing in his essay about how and where extra money for both climate action and poverty relief could be found.
'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.
An obvious relationship appears 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 percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by keeping pay low, driving up rental prices, undermining worker collectives and winning tax and spending cuts, extremely wealthy individuals benefit from others' economic struggles.
A notable research in Perspectives on Politics, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the general population. The rich participants surveyed, completely unlike ordinary citizens, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and environmental collapse as unimportant. They were significantly more prone to argue that public retirement benefits and government medical care should be reduced, and much less inclined to think that unemployed people merit reasonableēę“»č“Øé, or that there should be stricter rules for petroleum corporations, banking entities and medical coverage companies. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.
Which perspectives dominate? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than ordinary people. And now? The current reality seems obvious.
This represents another significant omission in Gates' writing: across extensive text, the former president receives no reference. Should the billionaire address this, he'd have to acknowledge that the second of his major assumptions is shaky: decreasing expenses for eco-friendly innovations automatically creates ecological advancement. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than traditional energy sources. But The former president and comparable figures are employing every method to hinder the change.
To some degree because of this, fossil fuels remain highly lucrative. This could be why, notwithstanding Gates' assertion about eliminating petroleum company stocks in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, truly expanded.
Regarding Gates, confronting extreme wealth power could appear inconceivable. 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. Possibly this represents "extreme wealth mentality": a fundamental failure to comprehend alternative viewpoints. Although extremely wealthy individuals are difficult to research, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that gaining massive wealth resembles experiencing brain trauma. Wealth seems to scramble certain cognitive functions, particularly those related to empathy and perspective.
But perhaps there's also calculation here: 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." Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"
Gates has historically been mistaken on this topic, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has repeatedly been behind current understanding, reciting fossil fuel claims (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) long after they've been discredited. He has disseminated uncertainty and false information, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on synthetic fertilisers was "to cut emissions".
Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. If, as currently expected, essential environmental mechanisms pass turning points and suddenly collapse, the consequences for people, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (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 sudden changes of state, the possible impacts on human wellbeing are extremely hard to predict. His claim that financial support should match current analytical approaches to quality of life, while it might sound rational, generates substantial unreasonableness when addressing fundamental change, {prompting us to ignore the greatest
A seasoned casino analyst with over a decade of experience in gaming strategies and industry trends.
