Economic, Government, Politics, Society

Reducing income inequality

INCOME DISPARITIES

Intro: Most people agree that income inequality is too extreme and that it needs to be reduced. But by how much?

INEQUALITY remains a major political issue in the world today. Most people agree that inequality is too extreme and needs to be reduced.

In the UK, the income ratio between the richest 0.01 per cent and minimum-wage workers has reached around 150 to one. Within the FTSE 100 firms, pay ratios between CEOs and lower paid workers hover at about 100 to one. Similar inequalities prevail in many other countries, while in the United States the figures are much worse, with pay ratios and disparities sometimes reaching into the thousands.

There is nothing natural or inevitable about extreme inequality. It is the predictable result of an economic system that distributes income based on who owns the means of production and who has the most market power, rather than according to any common-sense principle of labour contribution, human needs or justice.

Inequality corrodes society and poisons democracy, but it is also ecologically dangerous. The wealthiest in society consume an extraordinary amount of energy, resulting in high emissions and making decarbonisation more difficult to achieve. Recent research by Joel Millward-Hopkins published in Nature Communications shows that if we want to ensure decent lives for everyone on the planet, and by decarbonising quickly enough to feasibly achieve the Paris Agreement goals on the climate, we will need to dramatically reduce the purchasing power of the rich, while distributing resources more equitably.

But how much should inequality be reduced? What is an appropriate level of inequality? Millward-Hopkins’ research shows that if we are to ensure that everyone has access to resources necessary for a decent living, then a distribution where the richest consume at most around six times that level would be compatible with achieving climate stability. This may sound radical, but this distribution is very close to what people around the world say is a “fair” level of inequality. In some countries – such as Argentina, Norway and Turkey – people say they want inequality to be even lower, with ratios less than four to one.

People want to live in a society that is fair. This is apparent when we look at public sector pay scales, the closest thing we have to a democratically determined distribution. In major British institutions like the National Health Service (NHS) and within the universities, where unions representing members have a say over pay scales, the gaps between the highest and lowest salary bands rarely exceed five to one. If we correct for career-stage, the gaps are much smaller: the starting salary for a doctor or a lecturer is only about twice as high as that of a cleaner.  

Click on page 2 to continue reading

Standard
Environment, Government, Nature, Society, United Nations

The COP15 agreement in Montreal was a success, but it needs to be acted upon

COP15

Intro: The historic global agreement this month at the UN conference in Montreal, Canada, to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 is just the beginning. Governments and businesses now need to carry out the pledges made

THE COP15 agreement in Montreal, Canada, earlier this month, commits countries to implementing and funding ambitious global targets and national plans that can halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity. Our hopes of reversing the global crisis facing the natural world remain alive with the release of the new Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). It puts us on course for a nature-positive world.

By setting a target to conserve at least 30 per cent of land, freshwater and the oceans by 2030, and by restoring 30 per cent of degraded land – while respecting the rights and leadership of indigenous peoples and local communities – governments have chosen the right side of history. If the promises made in Montreal are delivered, history will truly be made.

During the early stages of the convention, hopes were high that negotiators could secure a “Paris Agreement for nature”. Just as the Paris Agreement targets guided subsequent actions on the climate, the GBF and its aims can now drive action to restore nature. This substantive agreement must be the catalyst for action from governments, business and society where we must transition towards a future with more nature, not less.

During the symposium, one of the most contentious issues arising was the finance package to support conservation efforts globally. It is a major achievement that negotiators forged an agreement that could pave the way for the mobilisation of at least $200bn a year in nature financing by 2030. The agreement commits signatory governments to eliminating subsidies to fertilisers and other products and practices harmful to nature.

The importance of the GBF affording full recognition to the rights and roles of Indigenous peoples and local communities cannot be emphasised enough. Indigenous peoples make up just five per cent of the global population, but they safeguard 80 per cent of the world’s remaining biodiversity. It was vital that they were recognised in the agreement and their rights protected.

Click on page 2 to continue reading

Standard
European Union, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United States

Eastern Europe is growing stronger amid the war in Ukraine

EUROPEAN UNION

Intro: The balance of power in the European Union is shifting eastward

AS 2022 draws to a close, Russia’s war in Ukraine rages unabated. Russian President Vladimir Putin sees what he still calls a “special military operation” as a life-or-death contest with the United States and its NATO allies. The West, for its part, considers the war a threat to its own security and has thrown its weight behind the defence of Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty.

There is an inherent problem, however, with framing the war as a clash between the US and Russia. It underplays the spirit, resilience, and enormous daily sacrifices of Ukrainian’s in resisting their mighty neighbour bent on re-creating a Moscow-centred imperial order. Had there been no resolve among Ukrainians to fight back aggression and revanchism then no amount of military and financial aid for Kyiv would have been sufficient to thwart the Kremlin’s ambition. 

That Eastern European countries and nations have agency and are more than pawns in the power struggles of larger players is imperative to understand. And it goes well beyond the example of Ukraine.

Poland has become a much more significant and influential player in European defence than it ever was. It is not just the fact that it is a front-line country which takes in many displaced refugees fleeing war from Ukraine, nor that it provides a land route to supply its neighbour with weapons and humanitarian aid, but, strategically, Poland is also ramping up its defence spending from 2.2 per cent of its gross domestic product to a record 3 per cent in 2023. That is one of the highest rates within NATO. The money will go into modernising and expanding its military forces and could make the Polish army one of the largest on the continent.

Warsaw is purchasing tanks and self-propelled howitzers from South Korea in a deal worth $5.8bn and will acquire state-of-the-art F35 fighter jets from the US in the future.

Click on page 2 to continue reading

Standard