3 ms·
It's worse than that. It neglects that investments only are associated with emissions because they are one side of a trade that results in emission producing a
by sbuttgereit 3y ago
It's worse than that. It neglects that investments only are associated with emissions because they are one side of a trade that results in emission producing activities. While willing investment could be argued to be a necessary precursor of greater emissions, willing labor, amongst other factors, is also a necessary ingredient without which the emissions don't happen. Allocating some of that responsibility to those on the other side of that trade is appropriate for a more complete accounting.
However, if you read Dr. Starr's self-description I suspect there's a specific narrative he's looking for:
"My research analyzes how economic inequality – particularly at the very top of the income distribution – shapes the distribution of environmental benefits and harms through the global economy." (https://www.jaredstarr.com/about https://www.jaredstarr.com/about)
- est31 3y agoYeah, there is willing investment, willing labour, and willing consumption, and this article seems to put all criticism on the first, which is heavily skewed to the 1%, while not looking at second and third, which is skewed towards the bottom 99%. I'm not saying you can't criticize the 1% for being massively wasteful consumers, it's entirely legitimate to criticize them. But as most consumption is by the 99%, the companies owned by the 1% mainly serve the consumption of the masses, not of the 1%.