• @bob_wiley
    link
    English
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    deleted by creator

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -21 year ago

      Hard to say what the motivation of this article is, but yea I agree. The article seems listless. They make a grand claim “10% is responsible for 40%!!!” but they dont’ really examine the claim. I absolutely think it’s a true, but without further analysis and a conclusion to be drawn, what is the point? The point of the article as far as I can tell is to advocate for a market based solution that somehow a carbon-based tax will magically make share-holders stop destroying the environment? It’s drivel.