Read on Twitter
re Oxfam's carbon inequality report, which said the richest 1% accounts for 50% of emissions https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621052/mb-confronting-carbon-inequality-210920-en.pdf it says "We assume …that emissions rise in proportion to income". Doesn't that mean its findings are automatically implied? If the richest 1% get 50% of income…
…then the model will automatically say that they create 50% of emissions? I mean it's probably not *wrong*, it's just a bit weird, like saying "if we define the most handsome people as looking the most like Tom Chivers, then we find that Tom Chivers is the most handsome person"
which again is a slightly strange way of arriving at an obviously true conclusion
no, this is fair - it's not an obviously true conclusion
(the bit about the emissions, not the bit about me being handsome)
it may well be that the emissions-income relationship changes quite a lot up and down the income distribution https://twitter.com/robblackie_oo/status/1309056916400812032
(the bit about the emissions, not the bit about me being handsome)
it may well be that the emissions-income relationship changes quite a lot up and down the income distribution https://twitter.com/robblackie_oo/status/1309056916400812032
Here is a thread on the topic that I saw the other day and then couldn't find! Thanks @redouad. It seems kind of bad of Oxfam to be releasing this as interesting news when it's basically an exercise in question-begging. https://twitter.com/wang_seaver/status/1308515414645719040
