by slow_typist on 5/10/25, 6:43 AM with 18 comments
by graemep on 5/10/25, 11:13 AM
How is this not a statement of the obvious? Its good analyse the data to check for surprises, but any other result would be a huge surprise.
by ETH_start on 5/11/25, 2:46 AM
The leap happens when the authors label this disparity an "injustice". That’s the normative leap: a moral framing imposed on the empirical data. Then they take it further, using that framing to justify a global wealth tax and polluter-pays schemes. That’s political activism under the guise of science. These scientists are operating far outside their domain of expertise when they weigh in on global tax policy, especially when they give credence to a wealth tax, whic has been rejected by many economists as hard to enforce, easy to game, and extremely likely to do far more harm than good.
This ideological current also shows up in the lack of balance. You won’t find parallel studies quantifying the benefits high-income groups have generated — foreign investment, export demand, capital formation, innovation, and philanthropy. These forces have driven the most dramatic poverty reduction in human history and unprecedented gains in life expectancy and infant survival. But those facts don’t fit the narrative.
The same asymmetry shows up in how CO₂ is treated. NASA’s 2016 satellite study found that elevated CO₂ levels was the primary cause of global green cover increasing by 30% between 1982 and 2015 (source: https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/carbon-d...). That’s a massive, measurable fertilization effect, with huge positive implications for agricultural production and the fight against desertification. Yet it’s completely absent from the discussion.
The data is useful but the framing isn’t neutral.
by tjpnz on 5/10/25, 12:32 PM
by acyclic0 on 5/10/25, 8:18 AM
by metalman on 5/10/25, 9:35 AM