Search the archive.

Many of the improvements can be seen with the naked eye. Cities are less often shrouded in purple-brown haze, and London no longer has the fog —actually coal smoke—that was immortalized in Impressionist paintings, gothic novels, the Gershwin song, and the brand of raincoats. Urban waterways that had been left for dead—including Puget Sound, Chesapeake Bay, Boston Harbor, Lake Erie, and the Hudson, Potomac, Chicago, Charles, Seine, Rhine, and Thames rivers (the last described by Disraeli as "a Stygian pool reeking with ineffable and intolerable horrors")—have been recolonized by fish, birds, marine mammals, and sometimes swimmers. Suburbanites are seeing wolves, foxes, bears, bobcats, badgers, deer, ospreys, wild turkeys, and bald eagles. As agriculture becomes more efficient (chapter 7), farmland returns to temperate forest, as any hiker knows who has stumbled upon a stone wall incongruously running through a New England woodland. Though tropical forests are still, alarmingly, being cut down, between the middle of the 20th century and the turn of the 21st the rate fell by two-thirds (figure 10-4).M Deforestation of the world's largest tropical forest, the Amazon, peaked in 1995, and from 2004 to 2013 the rate fell by four-fifths.-

The time-lagged decline of deforestation in the tropics is one sign that environmental protection is spreading from developed countries to the rest of the world. The world's progress can be tracked in a report card called the Environmental Performance Index, a composite of indicators of the quality of air, water, forests, fisheries, farms, and natural habitats. Out of 180 countries that have been tracked for a decade or more, all but two show an improvement.— The wealthier the country, on average, the cleaner its environment: the Nordic countries were cleanest; Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and several sub-Saharan African countries, the most compromised. Two of the deadliest forms of pollution—contaminated drinking water and indoor cooking smoke—are afflictions of poor countries.— But as poor countries have gotten richer in recent decades, they are escaping these blights: the proportion of the world's population that drinks tainted water has fallen by five-eighths, the proportion breathing cooking smoke by a third.— As Indira Gandhi said, "Poverty is the greatest polluter."—

But what’s arguably most fascinating about this event – known as the Permian-Triassic extinction or more poetically, the Great Dying – is the fact that anything survived at all. Life, it seems, is so ridiculously adaptable that not only did thousands of species make it through whatever killed off nearly everything (no one knows for certain though theories abound) but, somehow, after millions of years life even recovered and went on to write new tales. Even as the Permian-Triassic extinction event shows the fragility of life, it also proves its resilience in the long-term. The lessons of such mass extinctions – five to date and arguably a sixth happening as I write – inform science today. Given that extinction levels are currently 1,000 (some even say 10,000) times the background rate, researchers have long worried about our current destruction of biodiversity – and what that may mean for our future Earth and ourselves. In 2009, a group of researchers identified nine global boundaries for the planet that if passed could theoretically push the Earth into an uninhabitable state for our species. These global boundaries include climate change, freshwater use, ocean acidification and, yes, biodiversity loss (among others). The group has since updated the terminology surrounding biodiversity, now calling it “biosphere integrity,” but that hasn’t spared it from critique. A paper last year in Trends in Ecology & Evolution scathingly attacked the idea of any global biodiversity boundary. “It makes no sense that there exists a tipping point of biodiversity loss beyond which the Earth will collapse,” said co-author and ecologist, José Montoya, with Paul Sabatier Univeristy in France. “There is no rationale for this.” Montoya wrote the paper along with Ian Donohue, an ecologist at Trinity College in Ireland and Stuart Pimm, one of the world’s leading experts on extinctions, with Duke University in the US. Montoya, Donohue and Pimm argue that there isn’t evidence of a point at which loss of species leads to ecosystem collapse, globally or even locally. If the planet didn’t collapse after the Permian-Triassic extinction event, it won’t collapse now – though our descendants may well curse us for the damage we’ve done. Instead, according to the researchers, every loss of species counts. But the damage is gradual and incremental, not a sudden plunge. Ecosystems, according to them, slowly degrade but never fail outright. “Of more than 600 experiments of biodiversity effects on various functions, none showed a collapse,” Montoya said. “In general, the loss of species has a detrimental effect on ecosystem functions...We progressively lose pollination services, water quality, plant biomass, and many other important functions as we lose species. But we never observe a critical level of biodiversity over which functions collapse.”

Tim Newbold of University College London and his team conducted what may be one of the most comprehensive biodiversity analyses to date. They analyzed a database of more than 2.3 million records of more than 39,100 species living in 18,600 sites, representing a far more comprehensive dataset than those included in previous studies of the state of global biodiversity.

"We focused on species abundance because loss of abundance from ecological communities is likely to impair the functioning of ecosystems," explained Newbold.

Ironically, the rosy revenue projections that wealth-tax supporters such as Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman made in 2021 for its revenue potential—starting in 2023—are now hopelessly out of date. Two years ago, at the height of the pandemic, billionaires accumulated capital at near-record rates. Now, potential gains from a wealth tax have fallen because of the enormous declines in wealth (toward greater income equality!) experienced by virtually all newly minted tech moguls. Elon Musk leads the pack, with capital losses of $115 billion in 2022 alone. He has good company in Jeff Bezos ($80 billion); Mark Zuckerberg ($78 billion); and Larry Page ($40 billion). In sum, the American billionaires lost $660 billion this past year, about one-third of the $2 trillion in losses worldwide. Nothing guarantees that they will recover those losses any time soon, if ever. Considering a hypothetical 3 percent wealth tax rate, close to $20 billion in domestic wealth-tax revenue disappeared in 2022; this number would be far higher if the wealth tax also reached foreigners.

Pass the tax and those losses will only get larger. Killing the goose that lays a golden egg is to be expected in any system that stresses redistribution first and growth second.

A Wealth Tax Would Not Raise Much Revenue but Would Create Distortion. The U.S. faces historic deficits, and the federal government’s debt-to-GDP ratio is predicted to exceed 100% next year. This most likely means that, eventually, taxes must increase to pay some of the debt, especially if interest rates increase. Wealth taxes, however, are not a good way to raise revenue. All taxes alter people’s behavior, and the distortions they create can be harmful. Capital does not go toward its more productive uses; and distorting the returns from risk often yields unintended consequences. Income- and consumption-tax rates have to be quite high in order to discourage work or spending because it is hard to avoid these taxes.[12] Wealth taxes, however, are considered to introduce more distortions than any others. Even at low rates, they discourage saving and investment because they lower the return on these activities.[13] A 2% wealth tax may sound small. Senator Warren points out that it is only 2 cents on every dollar of wealth.[14] But it will be levied each year, so it is more instructive to think of it as a tax on capital income. And when you put the tax in income terms, 2% can be enormous. For example, if your assets return 4%, a 2% wealth tax is equivalent to a 50% tax on capital income! Thus, it is not surprising that wealth taxes increase the incentive to move assets abroad, as European nations have experienced. Unlike income, wealth is relatively easy to move and its value is relatively easy to manipulate. We already see significant distortions that exist in the taxation of estates. Quirks in the tax code that determine how tax liabilities are valued on estates lead to delays in when people sell assets, changes in how they value assets, and even changes to when people die. One paper[15] estimates that death rates changed slightly around the time when there were changes in the tax code that would affect tax liability, though some of the effects may come from when deaths are reported. Another, more common, distortion, is the stepped-up basis. It means that tax liability is based on capital appreciation from when the assets were bequeathed to when they were sold. Normally, capital-gains taxes are based on the growth in value from when an asset was originally purchased. Estate-tax rules encourage some to hold assets until their death that they would otherwise have sold earlier. Holding these assets will reduce the intergenerational tax burden.[16] This distorts asset markets, and the estate tax is only a one-time tax levied after death. An annual tax would create more distortions that could even worsen inequality. A wealth tax creates an incentive to keep companies private and not sell shares on the stock market, because that makes wealth easier to underreport, which lowers the tax burden. There are numerous examples of private wealth being unreliable and difficult to value. Take the Forbes list of richest Americans,[17] which, according to one study, is completely out of step with estate-tax data.[18] One example was the great fanfare around the report that Kylie Jenner, a reality-show and makeup mogul, was a billionaire and appeared on the Forbes list. Later it was revealed that she was indeed very wealthy but not a billionaire.[19] Her case demonstrates how easy it is to misstate wealth when a company’s shares are not sold on the open market. A wealth tax creates an incentive for entrepreneurs not to take their companies public—which means that the American public cannot share in the growth of the most productive firms. This reduces wealth creation within the broader economy.

Of all the possible types of ways to collect revenue, wealth taxes are the least desirable. Wealth taxes are inefficient and ineffective because wealth is inherently more difficult to measure. Privately held companies, for example, are not traded in public markets, which means that there are no stock prices by which one can objectively gauge their value. Also, financial assets can be hidden or moved abroad with the click of a mouse or converted into other assets that are hard to value. A dozen European countries had a wealth tax in 1990, but most abandoned them because they were ineffective and expensive to administer. In part, the taxes failed to raise much revenue because wealthy individuals easily moved their assets across borders to avoid taxation. Today, only Switzerland, Norway, Belgium, and Spain still have wealth taxes, but the rates—0.3%–1%, 0.85%, 0.15%, and 0.2%–2.5%, respectively—are much lower than the 2%–6% proposed by advocates such as Senator Elizabeth Warren for the United States. With a small enough rate, there is much less incentive to evade the tax, but far less revenue is raised. Switzerland collects the most from its wealth tax; and it only brings in about 3% of its tax revenue.[5] Wealth taxes distort behavior in a way that is harmful to economic growth and national prosperity. By taking a fraction of people’s wealth each year, the tax reduces the return to investing and discourages saving. This can reduce growth because investing and capital accumulation are critical to innovation.

It is perhaps surprising, then, that there is little scholarly merit in the notion that a short-term reduction in access to food increases the probability that conflict will break out. This is because to start or participate in violent conflict requires people to have both the means and the will. Most people on the brink of starvation are not in the position to resort to violence, whether against the government or other social groups. In fact, the urban middle classes tend to be the most likely to protest against rises in food prices, since they often have the best opportunities, the most energy, and the best skills to coordinate and participate in protests.

Accordingly, there is a widespread misapprehension that social unrest in periods of high food prices relates primarily to food shortages. In reality, the sources of discontent are considerably more complex---linked to political structures, land ownership, corruption, the desire for democratic reforms and general economic problems---where the price of food is seen in the context of general increases in the cost of living. Research has shown that while the international media have a tendency to seek simple resource-related explanations---such as drought or famine---for conflicts in the Global South, debates in the local media are permeated by more complex political relationships.

If we need to raise revenue, taxing the rich is a logical place to start given exploding income inequality and wealth inequality.

Data from inequality researchers Piketty, Saez and Zucman show that Americans in the bottom half of the income distribution have seen their share of total U.S. income fall from 17 percent in 1979 to 11 percent in 2016. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent of the income distribution have seen their share of total U.S. income rise from 12 percent to 21 percent over that same period.

The idea of imposing a tax on individual wealth has appeared in policy debates with increasing frequency. Proponents of a wealth tax have primarily argued that such a tax would achieve three objectives. First, a wealth tax would mitigate rising wealth inequality. Second, the tax would raise significant revenue that could be used to address debt and deficit concerns, and fund a variety of social policies. Finally, the tax would capture some income sources that currently are not taxed (e.g., unrealized capital gains or types of imputed income).

Yesterday, a New York Times article explained that proponents of a federal wealth tax hope to address exploding inequality but then went on to discuss the fears of some billionaires and economic policymakers that such a tax “would cripple economic growth, sap the motivation of entrepreneurs who aspire to be multimillionaires and set off a search for loopholes.” A wealth tax will not damage our economy and instead would likely improve it. Here’s why.

When the federal government collects taxes, it doesn’t take the money and burn it.

The most common argument cited to support flat income taxes and other measures that lower taxes for affluent families is that doing so will strengthen small businesses and accelerate economic growth within a state’s borders. Neither of these claims has merit.

Small businesses tend to be organized as sole proprietorships, partnerships, or S corporations and their owners pay tax through the personal income tax code rather than through the corporate income tax. But flat taxes tend to favor those with the highest incomes—including the largest and most profitable businesses rather than the smallest.

An overwhelming majority of a panel of Ohio economists believes that a flat-tax proposal pending in the Ohio House would worsen economic inequality, according to a survey that was published Monday.

Most of the 22 who responded also didn’t think that the proposal would spur economic growth.

States and localities raise most of their revenue through a mix of sales, excise, property, and income taxes. Among those levies, the income tax stands out as the only major tax that is structurally progressive.[2]

Property taxes on homeowners, rental property, and motor vehicles tend to affect low- and middle-income families most as a larger share of their net worth and income is tied up in these assets. Similarly, sales and excise taxes on the purchases that families make every day also affect low- and middle-income families most because they must spend most or all of what they earn to make ends meet, whereas high-income families have the luxury of spending only a small portion of their income each year. These regressive levies tend to worsen racial and economic inequality by taxing low-income people, a disproportionate share of whom are people of color, at higher rates than other families.[3]

Contrary to the claims of some flat tax proponents, flat taxes do not lead to lower taxes across the board. Flat taxes usually bring lower tax bills for high-income households and, because of that, they produce less revenue than graduated taxes during times of rising inequality. For most families, however, there is nothing inherently “low tax” about flat taxes. In fact, flat taxes often actually result in higher overall taxes than other tax structures.

Flat taxes are sometimes described as more stable and predictable sources of revenue for states. In large part, this is because by refusing to levy higher rates on top earners, flat taxes are blind to the soaring levels of inequality seen in recent decades and the immense fortunes being generated by the wealth of families at the very top of the income scale.

As the stock market surged over the last couple years, for instance, California enjoyed some of the fastest personal income tax revenue growth in the nation because business and investment profits flowing to affluent families are taxed at higher rates than the earnings of middle- or low-income earners. In flat tax states, by contrast, soaring fortunes at the top face the same marginal tax rate as wages and salaries being earned by middle- and low-income families.

Public banks are often touted as ways to remove government deposits from large Wall Street banks. But 53 percent of state and local deposits and 31 percent of federal deposits are held by community banks, meaning public banking would displace locally based community banks. Further, public banking would subject consumers to bureaucratic inefficiencies and public bank executives to political pressures by the elected officials that appoint them. Risky business Neither is public banking a safer place for consumers to park their money. Public banks are likely to be less regulated than private banks because they would not be supervised by a federal banking regulator. And any public bank that forgoes FDIC insurance would be backed by the full faith and credit of a state or municipality, shifting the risk from the bank-funded Deposit Insurance Fund to state and local taxpayers. Further, a cash-strapped state or municipality would provide little support against unexpected losses at the bank, and it could be tempted to draw on the bank's capital cushion.

Critics of public banking say it’s too costly, requiring millions or even billions of dollars. It could actually drain resources that could be used for infrastructure or community development projects. That’s what Rob Nichols, president and CEO of the American Bankers Association trade group, wrote in The Philadelphia Inquirer. But San Francisco-based 48 Hills, a progressive publication, pointed to a draft proposal for a public bank in the city, calling it financially feasible. While public banks might avert some of the risks associated with private banks, McCoy of Boston College noted that public banks may face their own challenges. “If it made loans, the question is: Would the mixture of the borrowers be a riskier borrower base than a bank that serves very affluent individuals?” McCoy said. She said she’s confident, though, that a well-run public bank could manage these issues. “It would be very important to have a highly experienced chief risk officer who would map out every risk that the bank faces and come up with a risk management plan,” McCoy said. McCoy also said that accounts with smaller balances tend to be more costly for banks because they provide less money to loan out and collect interest on.

Pass the tax and those losses will only get larger. Killing the goose that lays a golden egg is to be expected in any system that stresses redistribution first and growth second.

It should not, however, require this large a dose of reality to warn progressive states off yet another institutional blunder. The effort to impose a wealth tax runs afoul of the fundamental principles of taxation put in place throughout the course of the income tax era, which now spans more than a hundred years. The economic, or Haig-Simons, definition of income—the increase in net worth plus individual consumption—does not work when applied to any real-world tax system that must collect taxes from millions of people in a quick and efficient fashion. Instead, the standard way to tax wealth starts with the notion that the receipt of certain elements of wealth is taxable as income. In principle, that covers earned income and the realized gain from the sale or other disposition of property. However, it is widely known that certain kinds of benefit are so difficult to value that it is better not to recognize that gain upon receipt, so the tax is postponed until some later time when the taxpayer receives either cash or marketable securities.

Some researchers have earlier noted that climate change aggravated inequality, and they provided evidence in support of this claim. There are, however, two weaknesses in this discussion so far. First, the evidences are often indirect and not focused on inequality. The implications regarding inequality are presented as an afterthought, so to speak. Second, the evidences presented are generally of scatter-shot character and there is no connection among them. This paper tries to overcome these weaknesses – particularly the second one – by presenting a unifying conceptual framework for discussing and studying the relationship between climate change and inequality. It shows that the relationship between climate change and social inequality is characterized by a vicious cycle, whereby initial inequality makes disadvantaged groups suffer disproportionately from the adverse effects of climate change, resulting in greater subsequent inequality. The paper identifies three channels through which the above process unfolds. First, inequality increases the exposure of the disadvantaged social groups to the “adverse effects of climate change” (“climate hazards,” for short). Second, given the exposure level, inequality increases the disadvantaged groups’ susceptibility to damages caused by climate hazards. Third, inequality decreases these groups’ relative ability to cope with and recover from the damages they suffer. The paper presents evidence supporting each of these three channels.

The world’s insects are hurtling down the path to extinction, threatening a “catastrophic collapse of nature’s ecosystems”, according to the first global scientific review.

More than 40% of insect species are declining and a third are endangered, the analysis found. The rate of extinction is eight times faster than that of mammals, birds and reptiles. The total mass of insects is falling by a precipitous 2.5% a year, according to the best data available, suggesting they could vanish within a century.