My issue is that they’re using subjective terms to describe what they are claiming is objective data. It makes the whole thing sound amateurish and unreliable.

Good sectors are manufacturing and technology (neither of which are known for pollution or possible corruption, of course).

Not sure if you are making a Nicholas Cage face with the last “of course” part but just in case it is not, the corruption in the manufacturing part at least is probably as big as what there is in energy. I don’t reckon technology would be too far behind, with all the political interests even civilian market industries are having.

Also the polluting part I’d call BS as well. Yes, the energy production via mostly fossil fuel is the highest contributor to global warming and the worst of climate crisis we are beginning to feel, but mass manufacturing of even benign consumer goods are what drives the fossil energy market after transportation iirc. Besides, although mostly non-gaseous, manufacturing leads to a plethora of pollution types that are very detrimental to both human lives and Earth’s habitability, such as microplastics, lead, asbestos, mercury, most of which are fed to soil and subsequently waters.

Latest climate report on 1% of the population, with cutoff starting as low as about $100k income, causing 30-50% of the climate crisis also sounds contrary to how this graph labels things. These people don’t go buying gasoline to drink it with their income, they are simply higher parts of middle class with entailing living conditions and amenities.

I would very much take this “Good” and “Bad” labeling as stupid to begin with, but I think there is also ill-intent.