The Future We Choose by UN Environment Programme, IPBES, agencies   Dec. 2025   The most comprehensive assessment of the global environment ever undertaken has found that investing in a stable climate, healthy nature and land, and a pollution-free planet can deliver trillions of dollars in additional global economic growth, avoid millions of deaths and lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and hunger.   The Global Environment Outlook, Seventh Edition: A Future We Choose (GEO-7), released during the seventh session of the United Nations Environment Assembly in Nairobi, is the product of 287 multi-disciplinary scientists from 82 countries.   The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report finds that climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation, desertification, and pollution and waste have taken a heavy toll on the planet, people and economies – already costing trillions of dollars each year. Following current development pathways will only intensify this damage.   However, whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches to transform the systems of economy and finance, materials and waste, energy, food and the environment would deliver global macroeconomic benefits that could reach US$20 trillion per year by 2070 and continue growing.   A key enabling factor of this approach is moving away from GDP to indicators that also track human and natural capital – incentivizing economies to move towards circularity, decarbonization of the energy system, sustainable agriculture, ecosystem restoration and more.   “The Global Environment Outlook lays out a simple choice for humanity: continue down the road to a future devastated by climate change, dwindling nature, degraded land and polluted air, or change direction to secure a healthy planet, healthy people and healthy economies. This is no choice at all,” said Inger Andersen, UNEP Executive Director.   The report highlights transformation pathways to reduce exposure to climate risks, reduce biodiversity loss and support an increase in natural lands. Nine million premature deaths can be avoided by 2050, through measures such as cutting air pollution alone.   Following the transformation pathways would require changes across five areas, the report outlines:   Economy and finance: Move beyond GDP to comprehensive inclusive wealth metrics; price positive and negative externalities to value goods correctly; and phase out and repurpose subsidies, taxes and incentives that result in negative impacts on nature.   Materials and waste: Implement circular product design, transparency and traceability of products, components and materials; shift investments to circular and regenerative business models; and shift consumption patterns towards circularity through changing mindsets.   Energy: Decarbonize the energy supply; increase energy efficiency; back social and environmental sustainability in critical mineral value chains; and address energy access and energy poverty.   Food systems: Shift to healthy and sustainable diets; enhance circularity and production efficiency; and reduce food loss and waste.   Environment: Accelerate conservation and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems; back climate adaptation and resilience, leaning on Nature-based Solutions; and implement climate mitigation strategies.   Considering diverse knowledge systems, especially Indigenous Knowledge and Local Knowledge, is crucial to just transitions that address both environmental sustainability and human well-being.   The report calls on governments, multilateral organizations and the private sector to acknowledge the urgency of global environmental crises and to act to deliver a better future for all.   Drawing on multiple sources, the report also lays out in detail the current and future consequences of business-as-usual development models.   Greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 1.5 per cent each year since 1990, reaching a new high in 2024 – raising global temperatures and intensifying climate impacts. The cost of extreme weather events attributed to climate change over the last 20 years is estimated at US$143 billion annually.   Between 20 and 40 per cent of land area worldwide is estimated to be degraded, affecting over three billion people, while one million of an estimated eight million species are threatened with extinction.   Nine million deaths are attributable annually to some form of pollution. The economic cost of health damages from air pollution alone was about US$8.1 trillion in 2019 – or around 6.1 per cent of global GDP.   The state of the environment will dramatically worsen if the world continues to power economies under a business-as-usual pathway. Without action, global mean temperature rise is likely to exceed 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2030, exceed at least 2.0°C by the 2040s and keep climbing. On this path, climate change will continue to cut annual global GDP.   Land degradation is expected to continue at current rates, with the world losing fertile and productive land the size of Colombia or Ethiopia annually – at a time when climate change is reducing food availability.   The 8,000 million tonnes of plastic waste polluting the planet will continue to accumulate – driving up the estimated health-related economic losses of US$1.5 trillion attributable annually to exposure to toxic chemicals in plastics.   The multi-disciplinary group of scientists from around the world say the climate crisis, destruction of nature and pollution can no longer be seen as simply environmental crises.   “They are all undermining our economy, food security, water security, human health and they are also national security issues, leading to conflict in many parts of the world,” said Prof Robert Watson, the co-chair of the Global Environment Outlook.   All the environmental crises are worsening as the global population grows and requires more food and energy, most of which was produced in ways that pollute the planet and destroy the natural world, the experts say.   “This is an urgent call to transform our human systems now before collapse becomes inevitable,” said Prof Edgar Gutierrez-Espeleta, another co-chair and the former environment minister in Costa Rica.   “The science is good. The solutions are known. What is required is the courage to act at the scale and speed that history demands,” he said, adding that the window for action was “rapidly narrowing”.   The report contained several “critical truths”, Gutierrez-Espeleta said: environmental crises were political and security emergencies, threatening the social ties that held societies together. Today’s governments and economic systems were failing humanity and financial reform was the cornerstone of transformation, he said.   “Environmental policy must become the backbone of national security, social justice, and economic strategy.”   One of the key concerns outlined in the report is the $45 trillion a year in environmental damage caused by the burning of coal, oil and gas, and the pollution and destruction of nature caused by industrial agriculture.   These massive costs – called externalities by economists – must be priced into energy and food to reflect their real price and shift consumers towards greener choices, Prof. Watson said.   “We need social safety nets. We need to make sure that the poorest in society are not harmed by any increases in costs.”   There are also $1.5tn in environmentally harmful subsidies to fossil fuels, food and mining, the report highlights. These need to be removed or repurposed, it adds. Removing fossil fuel subsidies alone could cut emissions by up to a third.   Prof. Watson noted that wind and solar energy was cheaper in many places but was being held back by vested interests in the fossil fuel industry.   The climate crisis may be even worse than thought, he said: “We are likely to be underestimating the magnitude of climate change”, with global heating at the high end of the projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. An alarming prospect for much of the world.   http://www.unep.org/resources/global-environment-outlook-7 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/dec/09/food-fossil-fuel-production-5bn-environmental-damage-an-hour-un-geo-report- http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1w9ge93w9po http://hdr.undp.org/content/new-climate-dataset-warns-poorest-nations http://horizons.hdr.undp.org http://www.ipsnews.net/2025/12/businesses-impact-nature-on-which-they-depend-ipbes-report-finds/ http://www.ipbes.net/nexus/media-release http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/ipbes-nexus-report-integrated-solutions-to-address-interconnected-global-crises http://www.carbonbrief.org/ipbes-nexus-report-five-takeaways-for-biodiversity-food-water-health-and-climate/ http://www.iied.org/new-biodiversity-reports-wake-call-for-action http://www.ipbes.net/transformative-change/media-release http://www.ids.ac.uk/news/new-global-report-on-transformative-change-for-biodiversity/ http://www.ipbes.net/   * A Future We Choose (GEO-7) Executive summary: http://tinyurl.com/2p6jzv22 Visit the related web page
	Employees and customers everywhere care about respect for people and the planet by OHCHR, Independent Experts on Global Inequality   Dec. 2025   UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk at 14th United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights (28 Nov. 2025):   "The issues you will discuss over the next three days are central to our global economic system and its impact on people and planet. They are also about power - power that has evolved drastically over recent years.   When the international human rights system was established, human rights work was focused on the responsibility of Governments to protect people’s rights. Since then, corporate power has grown significantly, based largely on the accumulation of personal and corporate wealth among a handful of players. In some cases, this exceeds the economies of entire countries. And we know that if power is not constrained by law, it can lead to abuse and subjugation.   The current business model of social media platforms is already fuelling polarization, extremism, and exclusion. Many countries are struggling to address this phenomenon.   When powerful tech giants introduce new technologies, such as generative artificial intelligence, human rights can be the first casualty.   Generative AI holds significant promise, but its exploitation for purely political or economic benefit can manipulate, distort, and distract. The threats to several human rights, including privacy, political participation, free expression and work are clear and present.   Without proper safeguards and regulations, AI systems have the potential to turn into a modern-day Frankenstein’s monster.   Today’s threats could materialize into harms that undermine the promise of emerging technologies and could unleash unpredictable consequences.   Governments have a responsibility to come together to prevent such an outcome. And companies can choose a different path. They can seize the opportunity to build digital technologies that advance human rights and serve the public good.   Corporate power imbalances also play out in the climate emergency. The meagre results of COP30 in Belem illustrate this point. The fossil fuel industry is generating massive profits while devastating some of the poorest communities and countries in the world. There needs to be proper accountability for this injustice, and for all other harms related to climate chaos.   I often wonder how future generations will judge our leaders’ actions — and their fatal inaction — on the climate crisis. In fifty or one hundred years from now, could their inadequate response be considered ecocide, or even a crime against humanity?   Meanwhile, the continued abuse and mistreatment of workers across several sectors are also deepening inequalities. Migrant workers, women, and those working in the informal economy are among the worst affected.   I am concerned about ongoing attacks against the courageous human rights defenders who shine a light on business-related abuses. This is unacceptable.   There are also worrying rollbacks in law and policy. States in some regions are watering down laws requiring corporate respect for human rights, which could have ripple effects around the world.   Diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, which were adopted to address historic and structural discrimination, are under attack in some regions. This is a very troubling development; we cannot return to systems that run contrary to equality and justice.   To counter these trends, we need to tackle today’s challenges head-on.   Some companies are aligning human rights risk management with international standards, even as some regulations are being diluted. Some of you here today are committing to the renewable energy shift, helping drive record growth in capacity last year.   Other businesses are doing more to respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples in energy and infrastructure projects. Some are creating formal mechanisms to address the human rights impact of their operations. Some investment firms are aligning their strategies and decisions with human rights and are pivoting to green energy and sustainable infrastructure.   These are important steps that reflect what your employees and customers everywhere care about: respect for people and planet.   Courts have pronounced clearly that corporations have obligations to respect human rights. This doctrine needs to evolve further into clearly articulated legal obligations at the international level.   The International Court of Justice found that Governments need to prevent significant harm to our climate, including by regulating businesses. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights also recognized the right to a stable climate and called on States to enforce corporate due diligence and provide remedies for climate-related harm.   Earlier this year, courts in Brazil and the United Kingdom found that companies could be liable for abuses from slave-like labour practices, to oil pollution, to atrocities committed in third countries, respectively.   The value and importance of corporate compliance with human rights is beyond doubt. Businesses benefit from justice. They benefit from sound, stable institutions, from the rule of law, and from sustainable economies.   The cost of human rights abuses for businesses is high. Lawsuits can result in long delays. Protests and boycotts can have tremendous sway over corporate behaviour. They have already caused billions in financial damage to several multinational companies in recent years. There is also considerable evidence that employees prefer to work for companies that are perceived as ethical. Employee power is real.   This is a difficult moment for human rights, and it calls for unity and solidarity. We need a Global Alliance for human rights – a cross-regional coalition of States, businesses, civil society and others – to put human rights at the heart of public and political life.   We all have a role to play in addressing our world’s deepest challenges – not only as representatives of Governments, business, and civil society, but as global citizens. Human rights are about – and for – all of us. Together, let’s ensure that human rights guide decisions that will determine the course of humanity for generations to come".   Dec. 2025   The world is extremely unequal. (World Inequality Report 2026)   Inequality has long been a defining feature of the global economy, but by 2025, it has reached levels that demand urgent attention. The benefits of globalization and economic growth have flowed disproportionately to a small minority, while much of the world’s population still face difficulties in achieving stable livelihoods. These divides are not inevitable. They are the outcome of political and institutional choices.   This report draws on the World Inequality Database and new research to provide a comprehensive picture of inequality across income, wealth, gender, international finance, climate responsibility, taxation, and politics.   The findings are clear: inequality remains extreme and persistent; it manifests across multiple dimensions that intersect and reinforce one another; and it reshapes democracies, fragmenting coalitions and eroding political consensus. Yet the data also demonstrate that inequality can be reduced.   Policies such as redistributive transfers, progressive taxation, investment in human capital, and stronger labor rights have made a difference in some contexts. Proposals such as minimum wealth taxes on multi-millionaires illustrate the scale of resources that could be mobilized to finance education, health, and climate adaptation. Reducing inequality is not only about fairness but also essential for the resilience of economies, the stability of democracies, and the viability of our planet.   The first and most striking fact emerging from the data is that inequality remains at very high levels. Today, the top 10% of the global population’s income-earners earn more than the remaining 90%, while the poorest half of the global population captures less than 10% of the total global income. Wealth is even more concentrated: the top 10% own three-quarters of global wealth, while the bottom half holds only 2%.   The wealthiest 0.001% alone, fewer than 60,000 multi-millionaires, control today three times more wealth than half of humanity combined. This concentration is not only persistent, but it is also accelerating. Extreme wealth inequality is rapidly increasing. Since the 1990s, the wealth of billionaires and centi-millionaires has grown at approximately 8% annually, nearly twice the rate of growth experienced by the bottom half of the population.   Inequality is not only a question of income and wealth. It is also embedded in the structures of everyday life, shaping whose work is recognized, whose contributions are rewarded, and whose opportunities are constrained. Among the most persistent and pervasive divides is the gap between men and women.   Globally, women capture just over a quarter of total labor income, a share that has barely shifted since 1990. When analyzed by regions, in the Middle East & North Africa, women’s share is only 16%; in South & Southeast Asia it is 20%; in Sub-Saharan Africa, 28%; and in East Asia, 34%. Europe, North America & Oceania, as well as Russia & Central Asia, perform better, but women still capture only about 40% of labor income. Women continue to work more and earn less than men. Women work more hours than men, on average 53 hours per week compared to 43 for men, once domestic and care work is taken into account. Yet their work is consistently valued less.   Studying inequality across countries and over time reveals that policy can indeed reduce inequality. Progressive taxation and, especially, redistributive transfers can significantly reduce inequality. Taxation often fails where it is most needed: at the very top of the distribution. The ultra-rich escape taxation.   Effective income tax rates climb steadily for most of the population but fall sharply for billionaires and centi-millionaires. These elites pay proportionally less than most of the households that earn much lower incomes.   This regressive pattern deprives states of resources for essential investments in education, healthcare, and climate action. It also undermines fairness and social cohesion by decreasing trust in the tax system.   Progressive taxation is therefore crucial: it not only mobilizes revenues to finance public goods and reduce inequality, but also strengthens the legitimacy of fiscal systems by ensuring that those with the greatest means contribute their fair share.   Reducing inequality is a political choice. But fragmented electorates, underrepresentation of workers, and the outsized influence of wealth all work against the coalitions needed for reform. This reality can change. It reflects political choices about campaign finance rules, party strategies, and institutional design that can be reshaped with sufficient will. Inequality can be reduced. There are a range of policies that, in different ways, have proven effective in narrowing gaps.   One important avenue is through public investments in education and health. These are among the most powerful equalizers, yet access to these basic services remains uneven and stratified. Public investment in free, high-quality schools, universal healthcare, childcare, and nutrition programs can reduce early-life disparities and foster lifelong learning opportunities.   Another path is through redistributive programs. Cash transfers, pensions, unemployment benefits, and support for vulnerable households can directly shift resources from the top to the bottom of the distribution. Where well designed, such measures have narrowed income gaps, strengthened social cohesion, and provided buffers against shocks.   Progress can also come from advancing gender equality. Reducing gender gaps requires dismantling the structural barriers that shape how work is valued and distributed. Policies that recognize and redistribute unpaid care work, through affordable childcare, parental leave that includes fathers, and pension credits for caregivers, are essential to leveling the playing field. Equally important are the strict enforcement of equal pay and stronger protections against workplace discrimination. Addressing these imbalances ensures that opportunities and rewards are not determined by gender but by contribution and capability.   Tax policy is another powerful lever. Fairer tax systems, where those at the very top contribute at higher rates through progressive taxes, not only mobilize resources but also strengthen fiscal legitimacy. Even modest rates of a global minimum tax on billionaires and centi-millionaires could raise between 0.45% and 1.11% of global GDP and could finance transformative investments in education, healthcare, and climate adaptation.   Inequality can also be reduced by reforming the global financial system. Current arrangements allow advanced economies to borrow cheaply and secure steady inflows, while developing economies face costly liabilities and persistent outflows.   Inequality is a political choice. It is the result of our policies, institutions, and governance structures. The costs of escalating inequality are clear: widening divides, fragile democracies, and a climate crisis borne most heavily by those least responsible. But the possibilities of reform are equally clear. Where redistribution is strong, taxation is fair, and social investment is prioritized, inequality narrows.   The tools exist. The challenge is political will. The choices we make will determine whether the global economy continues down a path of extreme concentration or moves toward shared prosperity.   http://wir2026.wid.world/ http://wir2026.wid.world/insights/ http://wir2026.wid.world/insight/executive-summary http://wir2026.wid.world/medias/ http://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2025/dec/10/just-0001-hold-three-times-the-wealth-of-poorest-half-of-humanity-report-finds   Aug. 2025   G20 President South Africa launches independent G20 expert committee to focus on extreme wealth inequality.   The G20 Presidency of South Africa has established a “Committee of Independent Experts” chaired by Nobel Prize-winning economist Professor Joseph Stiglitz – to deliver the first ever-report on global inequality to G20 to world leaders.   The Committee is launched amid fears that global wealth and income inequality, which was already very high, is set to sharply accelerate.   Recent analysis shows that the world’s richest 1 percent have increased their wealth by more than US$33.9 trillion in real terms since 2015 – more than enough to eliminate annual global poverty 22 times over. Inequality of this scale poses a serious systemic risk to global economic, social and political progress.   The President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa:   “People across the world know how extreme inequality undermines their dignity and chance for a better future. They saw the brutal unfairness of vaccine apartheid, where millions in the Global South were denied the vaccines to save them.   They see the impacts of rising food and energy prices, of debt, of trade wars, all driving this growing gap between the rich and the rest of the world, undermining progress and economic dynamism. A new oligarchy in our global economy is becoming apparent.   “South Africa’s G20 Presidency is proud to launch an initiative that will target this issue of global wealth inequality – a first for the G20 – and offer practical ways going forward. We are honored to host a group of the world’s most respected economic experts, led by Professor Stiglitz, to produce a report that will be being presented to G20 Leaders.   Professor Joseph Stiglitz (USA), Nobel Economics Prize Laureate:   “Inequality has widened to extremes that threaten democracy itself and should be a concern of all of us; the profound rise in the discontent over mismanaged globalisation which in many places has contributed to this growth of inequality is also evident. Inequality was always a choice – and G20 nations have the power to choose a different path, on a range of economic and social policies".   “The wealth of scholarship on the causes of, and ways of reducing, inequality, can help us to redress the great divide that has grown enormously in recent years. Our task must now be to translate the evidence and public’s palpable anger at the great divide into sound, practical and transformative policy proposals.   * Dec. 2025: Committee of Independent Experts on Global Inequality final Report: http://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202511/g20-global-inequality-report-full-and-summary.pdf   * Joint Civil Society call urging President Ramaphosa to Confront Extreme Inequality at the G20: http://gi-escr.org/en/our-work/on-the-ground/joint-letter-urging-president-ramaphosa-to-confront-extreme-inequality-at-the-g20 http://gcap.global/news/gcap-and-global-south-civil-society-urge-g20-to-draw-a-red-line-on-billionaire-era-demand-action-on-debt-and-tax-justice/   July 2025   A Tax Victory for Multinationals Over People, by Joseph E. Stiglitz , José Antonio Ocampo, and Jayati Ghosh for the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation. (Project Syndicate)   Once again, G7 governments have decided to put the interests of multinationals ahead of the interests of developing countries, small and medium-size businesses, and their own citizens, this time by exempting US multinationals from the global minimum corporate tax agreed in 2021. The US must not be allowed to dictate global policy.   The US Treasury just made a deal with the other G7 countries that global minimum taxes that were already agreed upon will not apply to American companies. The G7 governments caved under intense pressure from President Donald Trump and lobbying from multinationals in Washington, London, Brussels, and beyond – just as India, and now, sadly, Canada have caved on digital taxation.   Years ago, the international community recognized that too many global companies were not paying their fair share of taxes, and some weren’t paying taxes to the country where the economic activity actually occurs. The complex agreement that emerged in 2021 at the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting comprised two pillars; only Pillar Two, a global minimum corporate tax, has been adopted. (The other pillar allocated taxation rights among countries and spurred opposition from both developing countries and the US.)   While there has been a global consensus on the need for such a minimum, the version the United States adopted during Trump’s first presidential term was different, and weaker, than that of the rest of the world, allowing multinationals to “make up” for what they didn’t pay in tax havens with the “extra” they paid in the US or other high-tax jurisdictions. While far from perfect, Pillar Two was a first attempt to ensure a minimum tax rate of 15% on the profits of multinationals everywhere, a crucial step to end harmful tax competition between countries.   There were, of course, some carve-outs and exemptions, which lowered the effective rate somewhat below 15%. And the 15% rate was already lower than the rate imposed by many developing countries; it should have been higher, and the carve-outs smaller. Still, the Pillar Two deal halted the race to the bottom, whereby countries offered lower tax rates to attract businesses to their jurisdictions. For the world as a whole, this race didn’t generate much new investment; the real winners were the rich corporations who pocketed the savings from paying almost no taxes at all in some countries.   But once again, G7 governments have decided to put multinationals’ interests ahead of the interests of developing countries, small and medium-size businesses (which can’t avail themselves of the shenanigans that multinationals have found so profitable), and their own citizens – who, as a consequence, will pay higher taxes.   By exempting US multinationals from Pillar Two, this deal will allow some to continue to benefit from zero or near-zero taxes on profits they book in low-tax jurisdictions or tax havens such as Puerto Rico and the Cayman Islands. This will make them more competitive than non-US multinationals.   Because modern multinational corporations are willing to move their nominal headquarters to wherever they get the most favorable tax treatment (and other goodies), with the real economic activity occurring elsewhere, giving US companies preferential treatment incentivizes companies to move their official headquarters to the US. This is another sad example of a race to the bottom.   By acceding to US demands, the G7 deal risks undermining the worldwide implementation of the minimum tax. It also makes a mockery of the inclusiveness of the so-called OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework.   There was a pretense that the new global framework was crafted by more than 140 countries working together. To be sure, many developing countries complained this was an unfair agreement for them and that powerful countries did not listen to their concerns. Now that façade has crumbled. The non-G7 countries, including dozens of emerging markets and developing countries, are now being asked to rubber-stamp a decision imposed on them by just one country.   Pillar Two should be strengthened, not gutted. It currently applies only to large multinationals (with a global turnover at or above €750 million), and the global minimum tax rate of 15% is set very low. The Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation has always advocated a minimum rate of at least 25%.   According to some estimates, Pillar Two’s minimum tax would have yielded between $155 and $192 billion annually in additional global corporate income tax revenue. While this is a significant amount, a minimum rate of 25% could generate more than $500 billion a year in additional revenue. In a world facing converging crises of inequality, climate change, and underfunded public services, leaving such substantial resources on the table is fiscally irresponsible and morally indefensible.   Pillar Two represented a starting point – a global floor on corporate taxation that could have curbed the race to the bottom and restored some degree of tax justice. The G7’s decision to let US multinationals off the hook weakens even that modest floor and sends the wrong message to the rest of the world.   Just two weeks ago at the United Nations, there was a global consensus about the need to strengthen international tax cooperation and to implement progressive tax systems, and a large majority of countries voted for and support ongoing negotiations toward a UN framework convention on international tax cooperation.   But the US government recently walked away from the UN negotiations, stating that the goals of the proposed UN convention “are inconsistent with US priorities and represent an unwelcome overreach.” In the adoption of the “Compromiso de Sevilla,” the outcome document of this week’s UN Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4), the US was the only major country that was absent.   Allowing the US to bypass the already modest Pillar Two rules not only undermines multilateralism; it also flies in the face of the commitments that have been made, and further deepens the inequity in global tax governance.   The members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework should reject the deal made at the G7. The US must not be allowed to dictate global policy. It is powerful, but still represents less than 20% of global GDP. Countries meeting in Seville for FfD4 can either accept the US undermining every effort to ensure multinationals pay their fair share, or redouble efforts to create a new international tax system at the UN that works for all. For the sake of the world economy and people everywhere, they should do the latter.   * Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics is a University Professor at Columbia University, and Co-Chair of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation. Jose Antonio Ocampo, a former United Nations under-secretary-general is a professor at Columbia University, and a member of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation; Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, is Co-Chair of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation.   http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/g7-caved-to-us-on-global-minimum-corporate-tax-by-joseph-e-stiglitz-et-al-2025-06 http://www.icrict.com/corporate-taxation/countries-must-stand-up-against-trump-bullying/ http://www.icrict.com/corporate-taxation/the-compromiso-de-sevilla-a-hope-for-tax-justice-now-governments-must-deliver/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/02/fair-and-effective-tax-policies-needed-advance-economic-social-and-cultural Visit the related web page
	View more stories