|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Category: Calls to Action & Petitions
-
Join Us: May 15 – Saving the Next Generation: Climate & Inequity
-
Urging Melinda French Gates to Tell the Truth. Take Action.
Melinda French Gates recently said this about what the wealthy owe others:
“Great wealth does not shield you,” French Gates says. “I have an absurd amount of wealth and I’m doing my very best to give it away. … But what I want people to know is that I’m a human being and they may put a label on me, but that label doesn’t really define who I am. … By being my authentic self, I hope they can see, OK, she’s gone through struggles and hardship too, but come out the other side and so maybe I can as well.”
Fair Start, by contacting her foundations this week, is urging her to Tell the Truth.
All of our not accounting, in our value and impact assessments and claims, for how for children enter the world relative to what their rights require has done more harm to our values and goals than we have done to further them. This is especially so because ignoring their birthrights both violated and degraded the ecological, social, and olitical thresholds necessary for justice and national legitimacy, and treated children of color as worth exponentially fewer resources and more risk than white children, discounting their lives to enrich others through growth. This single largest driver of the crisies we see today – not paying costs of functional legal rights for the future majority, which ensures growth and demand that undoes social justice imact, an undoing which we hide through omission.
Admitting this failure as part of the process of deriving and conditioning our obligation to follow the law on understanding our self-determination in the context of others – the intergenerational freedom and justice that makes representative and consensual governance possible – is the first step towards righting this wrong and not free-riding on our birth positionality. We admit we were not accounting for children entering the world in conditions consistent with their rights and political equity, the first measures necessary for national legitimacy and the assignment of entitlements to things like wealth. This did more to hide liability than further our missions. It entailed using the same flawed value assessment and reporting model, the most basic criteria for evaluation, that caused the political and ecological crises we see today to conceal liability for them.
The solution, described below, starts with zero-baseline harm reporting that evades the subversion of rights and commercialization of freedom. Without this freedom it’s physically impossible to otherwise control who has power over you, and wealth made at costs to values – like nature – is used to further degrade them.
This step is part of preempting conflicting standards that interfere with justice, which we cannot get to without starting with intergenerational justice as we constitute future relations. A world with rich infants and dying, impoverished infants, reflects illegal exclusion and a failure to constitute legitimately. Tital liberation starts with elevating the most vulnerable, infants and the animals with whom they will share the world.
We are asking Melinda:
When you make claims of adding value and beneficial impact, how were you accounting for children entering the world relative to what their rights require and reparations for the violations of those rights?
Chances are you were not, and not accounting for it did more harm to your values than you were doing to further them because it meant you were oerating in violation of children’s birthrights to measurable political, social, and ecological thresholds. That meant your claim derived from an illegal standard that ensures equitywashing, or manufactured numbers to the hide illegal costs and damages falling on others.
TRhe standard is illegal because it removes rights from our creation.
Equitywashing comes before green or humane washing, ensuring incusive criteria to accuratey asses the latter and in ways that avoid things like a climate crisis enriching some and killing others.
There is more suffering than ever in the world today because of that standard, which evades children’s brithrights – and the need to legitimate authority and entitlements via legitimacy thresholds – to instead ensure cheap labor and consumer demand. The rich were playing both sides, funding the industry and those who jumped in to say they were opposed.
This is not population. This is not something different – a different object – from you or anyone else, at all. It’s the orientation of the collective subject-pronoun, the obligated “we,” in our language.
The Fraudulent Standard
Because of the errors described below, you were using a fraudulent and illegal assessment and reporting standard that omits how children entering the world in conditions of inequitable growth that violate fundamental human rights – degrading political equity – undoes the value and impact you claim to make. If one makes impact claims out of the context of child entry and rights, they are doing harm than good, creating this fantasy world that skews and denies reparations to those who deserve them.
This omissive standard risks millions of lives, will cost businesses trillions of dollars, and its use constitutes the fraudulent withholding of equity reparations. Using this standard makes it impossible to meet our commitments, which imply context, and the protecting of key social, ecological and political thresholds.
Much of the wealth in the world today was made at cost to, and in violation of, children’s birth and development rights, including to political equity (or equal offets relative to zero). This illegal shifting of costs and degrading of the threshold of self-determination continued well after it was clear we’ve been in overshoot of the ecological, social and political metrics/thresholds that frame those rights.
Children’s rights mean we should only bring kids into certain conditions and that if we did that, the future would be better. And when we say “should,” that uniquely overrides all else because intergenerational/existential justice, or who we should be, always comes before what we do.
Those who hold wealth did not create value. They benefited from the violation of children’s birthrights to move costs, converting democracy into something more commercial, rather than legitimating their wealth and the state authority protecting it.
Who created Trump and Musk? Use of the illegal standard described here shows liberals caring more about the free money coming from their growth-based investmemnts than values, values ike moderate temperatures, access to water and nature, participatory democracy, equal opportunity etc.
Our first hurdle is to overcome the idea that having kids is just about the freedom of the parents. It’s also about the freedom of the child and the community they form. And that second freedom is unique because all authority to govern and to own wealth first derives from the inclusion of those subject to the governance or wealth as free and equal persons, with one person/one vote or equal self-determination.
But by 1968, governments had used the standard – which omits how children entering the world change our claimed impacts – to take equity out of reproductive rights systems so that inclusion never occurred. Instead, the illegal discounting of infants’ and animals’ rights, economic growth became the standard in a shell/ponzi scheme that took one’s freedom taken out of one’s birth positional context.
They assumed rather than legitimated their authority and entitlements, and by treating reproductive rights as based on parental whim rather than children’s rightr, power relations became subjective/commercial. The fundamental criteria use to evaluate – our rules – failed to evade the climate crisis because people were effectively excluded, bu growth and inequity, from making those rules.
Justice was taken out of where the power differentials, especially in the long run, were being made the greatest. This was equity fraud, avoiding protections inherent in the overriding right to democratic equity by only applying protections after children entered the world, in band-aid fashion, rather than before.
The standard is derived from the twentieth-century subversion of racial justice movements by wealthy white families who – using the concept of separate but equal – privatized the reproductive rights regime, maintaining an illegal and arbitrary birth lottery that gutted the rule of law by removing children’s rights and political equity, where we can offset each other’s fundamental influence over the rules, and from neutral baseline like the nonhuman world. The subversion separated the one person / one vote rule from the creation, at birth, of power relations, and how one’s birth ositionality could dilute the value of one’s vote.
This was a power grab, where governments just assumed authority and entitlements without actually legitimating them through rights.
This meant zero functional protections for infants as they entered the world, and the animals they would impact. That “population” is the closest common concept to this shows how deep the subversion runs. There were two standards: An illegitimate one designed to enrich wealthy white children that assumed governmental authority and entitlements to wealth and the legitimate standard of actually including children of color that was passed over.
This gutted what Dr. Breeze Harper called the primacy of Black birth equity, which benefited some children at deadly cost to others through unsustainable and inequitable growth. Operating outside of those rights, those parameters, harms others. The standard, using manufactured numbers, treats children of color as deserving exponentially fewer resources and more risk, including the violence inherent in unrepresentative government.
We would and should ostracize anyone who refused to hire black people. Why not identify, reform or if they cannot be reformed, ostracize anyone backing largely old white make billionaires whose wealth is being made at deadly cost to millions of black children, wealth that could be moved to still save lives? There is a bright line test for this sort of racist, based on whether one supports universal birth equity or not, now pending before the United Nations.
The standard allowed public interest organizations to maintain demand for products and cheaper labor, simultaneously undoing upstream the impacts they claimed to be making downstream through decoy, symbolic or charade-like interventions that used wealth made at cost to rights and objective values, to force attention on the symptoms and not the cause. By creating a fantasy world of change being undone daily by birth inequity, philanthropists were laid the groundwork for the threats our democracies now face.
The omission of daily undoing, through inequitable growth, is the subversion.
The focus of the animal rights movement for the last several decades on food, or performative micro-interventions undone by treating animals as property in our reproductive rights and constitutional law regimes, is exemplary. The funders did not care whether they were actually, on balance, saving animals as they long as they appeared to be. This, given the number of animals involved and what was known about growth, constituted the greatest example of the “winners take all” form of corruption the world has seen to date. Funders had not chosen animals over racial jutice but rather subverted both, doing more to protect white generational wealth than accomlish stated missions.
There is no such thing as an anthrocentric animal rights activist, and macro animal liberation requires equity reparations for future families that restore nature. Without macro animal personood, at a subject level of our thinking and commuciations, micro acts of animal protection becomes a charade.
It’s not about intent, but rather than consequences of our actions, and the language – using words like “humane” for a system increasingly causing suffering – under which we acted.
The wealth derived from that subversion today via foundations and otherwise funds media, nonprofits, academics (who were never neutral because they never accounted, as a default requirement for benefitting from the system, for their birth positionality), etc. who free ride on the birth lottery and continue to make false claims to protect the wealth. But we can’t use the same fundamentally illegal standard that caused the climate crisis and allowed generations of illegal wealth to compound in order to evade liability for it — that’s fraud. And the constitutional language that resolves it will be accessible to all, not owned by some. Would we have to go to court to get a decision as to the overriding nature of birth equity? The court’s authority derives from it.
The subversion took the idea of freedom, or autonomy, outside of one’s equity in one’s democracy and ability to influence political outcomes. But there is a first right to representative or consensual governance through inclusion and empowerment. Government can’t make up their own authority, including to define fraud in the basic allocation of costs and benefits, and entitle wealth to whom they choose. This is not about capitalism or socialism. This is about legitimacy and illegitimacy and the obligation to derive national sovereignty from individual sovereignty.
One way to tell the story involves abortion policy
The illegal standard, even by the most liberal assessments, treats terminating a pregnancy as autonomy for the woman, even if she dies months later in a climate crisis heat wave because she could not afford air conditioning. could not influence her political system to save herself, and did not have levels of trust to access her neighbor’s air conditioning, and was positioned that way because under fake “efficiency” standards she was treated as an economic input, etc.
The victim would have been taught and likely assumed that she had just been unlucky in her being born without wealth, when in fact she would have had the right to derive her obligation to the political system and condition her compliance with the law, on the state reversing that state of affairs, which derived from a very specific policy decision dating back to the 1960s. She was never free because she was never empowered, and in that situation, there is little reason to follow the rules. That is what commercialized/privatized/diluted freedom, and consumerism as social justice, and degraded democracy look like. Fundamental causation is existential, and her birth exclusion was the unjust cause of all she experienced. Any lesser account makes assumptions that hides things.
The subversion and standard enabled entities through their positionality to define and use terms like “sustainable,” green,” and “humane” around the needs of wealthy white children and their trusts, creating a fantasy world of good being undone daily by deadly inequitable growth at deadly cost to countless children of color.
But it is physically impossible to be free, as in objectively self-determining as opposed to other-determining, if we don’t use accurately obligatory language to first ensure that persons are created, developed, and emancipated in ways that equally offset their capacity to influence political systems equally, relative to a neutral position like nature/the nonhuman world. Legitimacy is a physical state of capacity to have consensual representative government derived from how we relate to one another.
Representative governance, and things like entitlement to wealth, derive from a legitimate legal system in which people are first obligated to one another, which is what it means in a constitution to say “we the people.” Our first obligations are to each other, in the creation at birth of the power relations between us. Ensuring our obligations to children are how we fist become politically obligated to one another, unless one gives up the idea of government by the people and consensual governance. We don’t get to maximize welfare through economic growth and massive inequality, at cost of self-determination, because that latter value is what is necessary to legitimate the former and subject it to consensual governance.
The subversion hid this fact.
If we do not agree to invest enough in children’s birth and development conditions, enough to offset their capacity to influence others relative to a neutral or zero position, then constituents are not being empowered equally, and representatives and officials do not represent us at all. Our values are operating at the object-level of our communication, where they can be undone, rather than at a subject level that reflects the creation of power relations. Animal personhood and liberation, in a macrosense, works at the subject level. That can be reversed, as discussed below, by collective family planning systems. If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to plan for one.
The solution
Instead we should derive and condition governmental authority, any entitlement to wealth, and any obligation to follow the law on any constituents subject to those things being measurably empowered and towards a discreet future defined by liberating parameters. This is feasible through care modeling and collective planning to ensure readiness, delay, equity, and relocation if needed, as well as a preemptive right and obligation to move wealth to fund civil rights reforms that focus on birth equity.
This ensures a preemptive standard to avoid governments hiding their own liability for actual harms associated with the climate crisis, governments whose work is preempted by the need to first legitimize ther authority. A fair start in life for all children is the first law, and no one is above the law.
There’s a counterfactual world, a legal world in which the subversion didn’t happen, in which wealth was not made illegally at cost to children’s and others’ rights. That is measure of reparative justice owed. Things like racial justice and animal liberation align once we abandon the standard that allows us to violate – in creation – the rights of others, exploiting children and animals by bringing the latter in beneath the threshold of things we owe them.
Things like AI governance reforms around better base code that ensures no obligation to follow the law without being empowered to change it, and using crowdsourcing for the enforcement of life-saving and self-defensive equity reparations to empower can change this. For example, those negotiating the Paris Agreement on climate assumed authority and entitlements rather than actually legitimating them – a move that will kill countless innocent victims. Telling the Truth resolves this.
We can’t get to justice from injustice or obligations from others by first violating our obligations to them. Change starts with the most vulnerable, infants and animals, and their rights to be measurably free.
Telling the truth is a constitutive discourse, the only means to a just and legitimate future.
We ask these questions of anyone claiming to add value to the world:
How were you accounting for your work being undone each day by violations of children’s birthrights as they entered the world? Would you be willing to derive wealth and authority back and condition it on ensuring such birthrights? If you could go back and make that change in our political systems decades ago to save millions of lives, would you do it? If you claimed to create value that was being undone by basic inequity, would you not be eager to reform that system and align with your claimed values?
The illegal standard is designed to hide deadly costs and liability.
And the preemptive standard, as both a means of interpreting law and actually creating obligation to future children, requires the disclosure of that information through a truth and reconciliation process meant to ensure the full payment of damages by creating a situation where children are capable of forming self-determining communities.
Changing away from the subversion and its standard, reorienting by Telling the Truth in response to the questions above, could save millions of lives and trillions of dollars while constituting a just future through a discourse that includes all in the ongoing formation of a protective social contract. Children entering the world relative to standard of self-determination or sovereignty is the only source from which governmental sovereignty and authority can derive, including authority to assign property rights to wealth. The Children’s Rights Convention, replaces national sovereignty as the basis for international law because the latter derives from the former. Otherwise, you are using a false premise where one go from adult reproductive rights to protect autonomy, to adult human rights to protect autonomy, with children’s rights thrown in – as abandaid after the fact – rather than as a check on the creation of power relations.
If we want to be in a legitimate political system, we need to first account for our existence, our birth-based positionality, and privilege, or we cannot be truly self-determining, deriving governmental authority, entitlements to wealth, and obligation to follow the law on measurable and equitable empowerment for all as children enter the world. If we can’t fully account for our birth-based position in the social contract, we fall outside its scope of obligation – why would we be collectively obligated to those who cannot account? Tell the Truth devides the free from the unfree.
Elevating infants and animals enables authority, the rule of law, and justice. Anything else is too late.
Take Action
Fair Start, by contacting her foundations this week, is urging her to Tell the Truth.
You can also call on leadership at the United Nations to justify their authority by showing how they are rights-empowering children as they enter the world, rather than exploiting them as economic inputs.
-
Urge Peter Singer to Acknowledge the Truth
This year, Fairstartmovement.org is launching the Tell the Truth campaign, calling on prominent social justice figures to acknowledge their failures as the climate crisis worsens and claims millions of lives.
At the root of these failures is the neglect of a fundamental issue: the impact of population growth and power dynamics on the success of their reforms. This oversight has consistently undermined progress, enriching a small percentage of mostly white families while causing devastating harm to communities of color.
For decades, activists including myself were discouraged from addressing this issue, allowing wealthy funders to exploit growth-driven inequities that fuel the crisis.
This is not a debate. Tell the Truth simply asks key figures to disclose how their advocated values have been systematically undone in the last three years as children entered the world without the necessary resources, further degrading ecosystems and eroding political representation.
Take Peter Singer, for example. He should acknowledge how his work in animal liberation—whether in terms of animal suffering, welfare, or rights violations—has been undermined by economic growth that primarily benefited his backers. Instead of relying on misleading projections for food investments, he should measure real harm using a zero-baseline approach that accounts for self-determination and the broader consequences of unchecked population growth.
Singer’s advocacy for Effective Altruism repeats this fundamental error, promoting a model of philanthropy that redistributes wealth gained at the expense of animals, the environment, and children’s rights. His framing of animal liberation has ultimately enriched a privileged few rather than meaningfully improving welfare.
If he truly cares about animal liberation, he must incorporate population impact into his cost-benefit analysis—something he has never done. Now is the time to start.
When we factor in the climate crisis, the numbers reveal the truth: his work has benefited investors in vegan food and other industries more than it has protected animals or vulnerable people. Intentions aside, Singer and others have contributed whether through negligence or omission to the same demand-driven growth that fuels environmental destruction. Unlike Exxon, which drives emissions through supply-side actions, Singer claims to advocate for animals while enabling the very system that harms them.
Animal rights claims are highly falsifiable when examined through real data. Will legacy and hype take precedence over preventing further deaths in this crisis?
Contact Peter Singer and urge him to tell the truth.
A real solution? Support UN-backed reforms that ensure future generations receive the wealth these failures have created.
This goes beyond greenwashing approaching fraud. As the death toll rises, legal systems are evolving to hold accountable those who facilitate the crisis through misleading narratives and omissions.
Click here to Donate to Fair Start Movement Campaign
-
Yes, You Created Musk and Trump. Take Action
If you see Trump and Musk as threats to democracy, ask yourself: What has your company done—at the most fundamental level of empowering children at birth—to actually protect democracy?
Does your company’s cost/benefit analysis account for ensuring children are born into conditions consistent with the Children’s Rights Convention, the foundation of human rights and democracy? Or, like Trump and Musk, does it treat children as economic inputs in a growth model?
Have you benefited from growth-based investments that reversed climate and animal protection reforms while enriching those you criticize? Did your company profit from vegan food investments that relied on growth and deep wealth disparities between Black and white children—ultimately doing more harm than good?
Justice cannot be built on injustice, especially when infants and animals remain unprotected at birth.
The Root of the Problem
Wealth today was built on growth at the expense of children’s rights. Nations illegally sidestepped their duty to ensure children are born into fair conditions. Instead of prioritizing birth equity, they allowed wealth to concentrate among the privileged.
This failure is perpetuated by entities in the most climate-damaging nations, using fraudulent impact assessments that ignore how birth inequity undid sustainable development gains—concealing their role in the deaths of millions.
A Just Solution
All climate reparations must be based on measurable collective self-determination. There is no justice outside of this system, given the climate’s impact on infants. We must identify and hold accountable those who continue to use misleading standards to evade responsibility. Governments and the wealthy cannot redefine “harm” to escape liability for millions of deaths.
Language matters. True freedom and self-determination require clear communication about our fundamental obligations to others.
The Path Forward
To protect democracy, companies must foster real power structures from birth. In the name of intergenerational justice, we must:
- Expose key bad actors who profited while concealing harm.
- Demand accountability for fraudulent impact assessments.
- Redirect wealth toward delayed parenting and family planning incentives that prioritize birth equity.
Those who made their fortunes through fraud and unfair competition—omitting deadly costs in public impact statements—owe it back to society.
We have a moral obligation to reclaim and redistribute that wealth to ensure no child is born without empowerment and opportunity.
Click here to Donate to Fair Start Movement Campaign
-
Tell the Truth Campaign: Ensuring Birth Equity as the First Human Right
The Tell the Truth campaign calls on all who claim to improve the world to report their impacts in the context of children entering the world—relative to the rights and conditions they are promised.
Are organizations truly accounting for the life experiences of the most vulnerable—infants and the animals they will impact? When we evaluate this honestly, we see how today’s ecological and political crises arose: those who appeared to be making progress were, in reality, reinforcing inequality and environmental destruction.
Exposing the Truth
We are fact-checking organizations that claim to support justice but fail to account for birth equity and sustainability, including:
- The Weeden Foundation
- Mercy for Animals
- Wikipedia and the Center for Biological Diversity
- Animal Rights Philanthropist Brad Goldberg
This process reveals how public interest efforts often use flawed standards that hide their role in worsening the crises they claim to solve. By failing to prioritize birth equity, they reinforce systemic injustice, climate devastation, and political inequality.
The Core Issue: A Flawed Standard Driving Global Crises
For decades, nonprofits, media, and business leaders ignored the impact of population growth and inequality, creating a false narrative of progress. Their standards for measuring impact exclude birth equity, ensuring a cycle of privilege for some while disempowering others—especially children of color. This approach has:
- Undermined climate and racial justice efforts
- Allowed unsustainable economic growth to masquerade as progress
- Ensured wealth remains concentrated at the expense of the most vulnerable
A Necessary Shift: Fair Start as the Overriding Human Right
Instead of perpetuating injustice, we must reallocate extreme wealth to ensure every child is born into a system of reparations, with access to essential resources, education, and a sustainable environment. This includes:
- Parenting delay and readiness programs
- Family planning incentives inversely tied to privilege
- A shift in policy to prioritize children’s rights as the foundation of justice
Holding Institutions Accountable
Fair Start activists, many of whom previously worked in leading nonprofits, are exposing how these organizations profited from systems that violated children’s rights. Legal action is underway, including climate tribunals in Africa, to challenge these harmful practices.
Take Action: Tell the Truth
We urge organizations and individuals to:
- Assess and report impacts honestly—How does your work account for birth equity and the rights of future generations?
- Support policy reforms that place children’s rights at the center of governance and sustainability efforts.
- Admit the truth—continuing to ignore this reality does more harm than good.
Justice starts with birth equity. It’s time to tell the truth and demand real accountability.
Click here to Donate to Fair Start Movement Campaign
-
Urging Leaders of the UN Commission on the Status of Women to Tell the Truth, and Admit Their Death Debt
Fair Start Movement activists, who are attending the 69th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women, are urging leadership to Tell the Truth:
The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, illegally violated the first and overriding human right, the right to an ecosocial fair start in life for all, and as such has done more harm than good because it thereby exacerbated inequity and deadly ecocide, leading to the deaths of millions as the climate crisis accelerates.
One fix?
Leadership should change course, consistent with the policy advice below, and further urge the United Nations Secretary General to back fair starts in life, and measurable political equity, as overriding any system of governance that does not prioritize those things.
FAIRSTART’S ADVOCACY PAPER FOR CSW69: CENTERING CHILD RIGHTS IN REPRODUCTIVE POLICIES
Integrating Child Rights into Reproductive Policies: A Fair Start Approach
The Fair Start Movement advocates for a fundamental shift in reproductive policies, moving beyond traditional frameworks focused solely on fertility rates and contraception to a holistic, child-centered approach. At its core, the Fair Start Movement is committed to ensuring that every child is born into an environment that fosters their well-being, growth, and future success. Aligning with global frameworks, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Beijing Platform for Action, the Maputo Protocol, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Our mission is to ensure that every child is born into conditions that foster their well-being, rights, and future opportunities, granting them the ability to influence their outcomes in a just and equitable society.
In line with this, FS has initiated petitions before the UN and ACHPR, and has launched a Tell the Truth (TTT) campaign, to bring these changes to the forefront of international legal discourse.
Reproductive Rights as a Foundation for Child Well-being
For too long, reproductive policies have been narrowly defined by access to contraception and abortion, neglecting the broader socio-economic realities that shape family planning choices. Fair Start advocates for a paradigm shift from simply reducing fertility rates to creating environments where informed reproductive choices are supported by education, economic security, and child welfare protections as exemplified in our Seed for Future Africa Program across Africa.
Key Policy Advocacy
- Governments must prioritize investments in education to empower individuals to make informed reproductive choices.
- Reproductive rights frameworks should be integrated with child rights protections to ensure intergenerational equity and sustainability.
Child Rights in Reproductive Policies
Current reproductive policies often ignore the long-term welfare of children born into poverty, conflict, or fragile health systems. To achieve sustainable development,
reproductive policies must be framed within a child rights perspective, ensuring that every child is born into conditions that allow them to thrive.
Key Policy Recommendations
- Right to Survival and Development (UNCRC Article 6): Ensure reproductive policies are not solely focused on reducing birth rates but also on providing conditions for child survival, growth, and development.
- Right to Health and Nutrition (UNCRC Article 24): Strengthen reproductive policies to reduce child mortality rates, prevent malnutrition, and promote maternal well-being.
- Right to Protection from Poverty and Exploitation (UNCRC Articles 26 & 32): Link family planning policies to economic and social protections to break cycles of poverty.
- Right to Education and Equal Opportunities (UNCRC Articles 28 & 29)
Aligning with Global Frameworks
Fair Start’s policy advocacy aligns with major international frameworks, ensuring a unified approach to reproductive and child rights policies:
- Beijing Platform for Action (1995): Calls for universal access to reproductive health services while recognizing the role of socio-economic conditions in reproductive choices.
- Maputo Protocol (2003): Advocates for women’s reproductive autonomy but must be expanded to include policies that enable delayed fertility for child well-being.
- AU Agenda 2063: Supports human capital development, gender equality, and social transformation, aligning with sustainable reproductive policies.
- SDGs (2030 Agenda): SDGs 3, 4, and 5 highlight reproductive autonomy, education, and gender-responsive health policies as integral to global sustainability goals.
The Fair Start Movement’s Advocacy: UN Petition, ACHPR Petition, and the TTT Campaign
The Fair Start Movement is actively working to bring systemic change through various advocacy platforms, including our UN petition, ACHPR petition, and the recently launched TTT campaign.
The UN petition led by the Fair Start Movement calls for the integration of child rights into global policy frameworks, with an emphasis on addressing the long-term impacts of the climate crisis on future generations. The petition urges the UN to prioritize child welfare, ensuring that the rights of the future generation are safeguarded, especially in the face of environmental degradation and climate-related harm. It highlights the need for climate reparations to support communities most affected by environmental destruction, guaranteeing that future generations inherit a world capable of supporting their rights and opportunities.
Similarly, the ACHPR petition, presented to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, calls for the integration of climate justice into policy frameworks across Africa. It stresses the need for African governments to advocate for child rights and demand reparations given the impact of climate change in Africa. This must be done in order to mitigate the effects of environmental damage on children, especially the future generations in order to have the opportunity to grow, thrive, and enjoy basic rights, free from the consequences of climate-induced harm.
The Tell the Truth (TTT) campaign is Fair Start Movement’s latest campaign, focused on raising global awareness about the need for accountability and justice in the face of the climate crisis.
What Fair Start Is All About
At the core of the Fair Start Movement is the belief that every child should be granted a fair start in life, free from the constraints of systemic inequalities. We criticize any political standard that fails to prioritize child rights, particularly policies that perpetuate cycles of disadvantage. The standard we criticize is anything that does not use child rights to constitute nations with such investment in each child that there are equal offsets of each child’s capacity to influence outcomes relative to zero, or 0, 1, 2,……0.
In other words, political legitimacy should be based on ensuring that every child is equipped with the means to influence their future, starting from birth.
The Deadly Lie: Privatizing Freedom and Political Legitimacy
World leaders privatized freedom in the birth-creation of political relations after 1948 by conflating the act of having and not having children under a singular umbrella of autonomy, rather than treating the former as requiring political equity for the child. This hid the nature of freedom by privatizing the creation of political relations. And it led to
the measuring, assessing and reporting of public interest outcomes based on standards meant to take oneself out of one’s birth and development context, ensuring children of color were treated as deserving less and placing them at increased risk. This was the hiding, linguistically, of birthright white supremacy and massive death debt with a fraudulent assessment and reporting standard that inverted political obligation, hiding the need for nations to invest equitably in each child just to have basic authority over citizens – to be “representative.”
Leaders conflated the two by defining power narrowly as the violence of the state, rather than any form of human influence, so one would be free to terminate pregnancies without law enforcement blocking you, only to now die in a heat wave because one had no influence over climate policy, and could not afford air conditioning.
As Zaharah poignantly states:
“How dare you? In this inequality and climate injustices that have harmed us from the global south, our children are dying and have no accountability, using a top-down system that isolated victims from the global south. The wealth you enjoy was made from the innocent blood of poor people from the global south. You will not escape blame, and it will pass into your children because your children are born in the luxury that was taken from us.”
This sentiment reflects the reality that wealth accumulated at the expense of the Global South has left many children dead, with millions more at risk of dying from inequality and climate injustices. We must adopt and support an Afrocentric model while dismantling the top-down systems that perpetuate these inequalities.
A Call to Action
The Fair Start Movement calls on governments, policymakers, and global institutions to radically transform reproductive policies by embedding child rights at their core. This transformation is not just a matter of political or social reform—it is a moral and legal imperative that ensures the survival, growth, and development of every child.
We demand a departure from outdated, population-control driven narratives and call for a shift toward child-centered policies that prioritize equitable investments in every child’s future. It is time for nations to acknowledge their responsibility to invest in each child from the moment of conception, ensuring that every child is afforded the opportunity to influence their own future and thrive in a world free from systemic inequalities.
Additional Advocacy Talking Points for CSW69: Integrating Child Rights into Reproductive Policies & Promoting Delayed Fertility
Reproductive Rights Must Evolve Beyond Contraception and Abortion
- Historically, reproductive rights policies have focused primarily on access to contraception and abortion without ensuring long-term socio-economic sustainability.
- A more holistic approach is needed—one that integrates child rights, economic security, and education policies into reproductive health frameworks.
- Key advocacy point: Shift the narrative from “reducing fertility rates” to “creating enabling environments for informed reproductive choices and child well-being.”
The Case for Delayed Fertility as a Policy Priority
- Studies show that delayed fertility (having children at a later age when socio-economically stable) leads to better health, educational, and economic outcomes for children and parents.
- Policies should focus on empowering women and families to make reproductive choices that align with their aspirations and economic security.
- Key advocacy point: Governments must invest in education, employment opportunities, and financial security for women to enable informed family planning decisions rather than just controlling fertility rates.
Child Rights Politics: Centering Children in Reproductive Policies
- Current policies focus on reproductive choices without considering the long-term welfare of children born into poverty, conflict, or fragile health systems.
- Child rights frameworks (such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – CRC) should be integrated into reproductive policies to ensure that every child is born into conditions that allow them to thrive.
- Key advocacy point: The shift toward child rights-based reproductive policies ensures that family planning policies contribute to intergenerational well-being, not just short-term fertility management.
Linking to Global Commitments: Aligning with Beijing Policy, Maputo Protocol, AU Agenda 2063, and SDGs
- Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (1995)
- The Beijing Platform for Action remains a landmark policy framework that recognizes women’s reproductive rights as human rights.
- It calls for universal access to reproductive health services and highlights the role of socio-economic conditions in reproductive choices.
- Key advocacy point: CSW69 should advocate for full implementation of Beijing’s commitments, with an emphasis on integrating child rights and delayed fertility as part of women’s reproductive empowerment.
- The Maputo Protocol (2003)
- The Maputo Protocol (Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa) guarantees women’s rights to reproductive health, autonomy, and access to safe abortion in specific cases (rape, incest, or when the pregnancy endangers health or life).
- Article 14(1) states that women must have the right to control their fertility and access family planning services.
- Key advocacy point: While Maputo advances reproductive rights, its implementation should extend beyond contraception and abortion to include economic policies that enable women to delay childbirth if they choose, ensuring child well-being and intergenerational equity.
- African Union’s Agenda 2063
- Agenda 2063, Africa’s long-term strategic framework, emphasizes human capital development, gender equality, and social transformation.
- The Aspiration 6 of Agenda 2063 calls for an Africa where development is people-driven, relying on the potential of its women and youth.
- Key advocacy point: Sustainable reproductive policies must align with Agenda 2063’s focus on education, economic empowerment, and gender equality—ensuring that family planning policies are designed to uplift both women and future generations.
- Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
- SDG 3 (Health), SDG 4 (Education), and SDG 5 (Gender Equality) all highlight the need for reproductive autonomy, access to education, and gender-responsive health policies.
- The ICPD 1994 framework emphasized reproductive rights beyond contraception, advocating for health equity, maternal support, and economic empowerment.
- Key advocacy point: The CSW69 discussions should align with global goals and commitments, ensuring that reproductive policies support women’s empowerment and child well-being holistically.
Addressing Potential Criticism and Challenges
Risk of Restricting Reproductive Freedom
- The shift towards child rights-based reproductive policies and delayed fertility must not be used to restrict access to contraception or abortion.
- Advocacy focus: Policies should be framed as expanding reproductive choices, not imposing delays on fertility through coercion.
Economic and Policy Feasibility
- Delaying fertility requires strong social and economic policies, including affordable healthcare, education, and job opportunities.
- Advocacy focus: Governments must invest in infrastructure that enables reproductive autonomy, rather than focusing solely on birth rate policies.
Avoiding Population Control Narratives
- Some policymakers might misinterpret delayed fertility as a population control strategy.
- Advocacy focus: This is not about controlling population but about ensuring sustainable reproductive choices and child well-being.
Key Child Rights Issues we can include in CSW69 Advocacy and How to Make Them Relevant
Child rights must be central to reproductive policy discussions because policies that affect fertility and reproductive choices directly impact the well-being, rights, and future of children. Below are the key child rights issues that should be included in the CSW69 advocacy, along with their relevance to the discussion on delayed fertility and reproductive policies.
- Right to Survival and Development (UNCRC Article 6)
Relevance:
- A child’s right to life and healthy development is directly linked to maternal health, prenatal care, and economic stability of parents.
- When reproductive policies focus solely on reducing birth rates, they overlook the quality of life for children born under precarious conditions.
- Delaying fertility can ensure that children are born when parents are physically, emotionally, and financially stable, improving survival rates and reducing child malnutrition and preventable diseases.
Advocacy Point:
- Reproductive policies must not only provide access to contraception and abortion but also ensure that every child born has the conditions needed for survival, growth, and development.
- Right to Quality Health and Nutrition (UNCRC Article 24)
Relevance:
- When young mothers (especially adolescents) have children before they are financially and emotionally ready, it increases child mortality rates and malnutrition.
- Studies show that children born to older, economically stable mothers have better health outcomes and access to healthcare.
- Unsafe abortions due to restrictive reproductive policies also lead to orphaned children or children left in unstable care systems.
Advocacy Point:
- Governments must strengthen reproductive policies to ensure that family planning services support women in choosing when to have children based on health and well-being factors.
- Right to Protection from Poverty and Exploitation (UNCRC Articles 26 & 32)
Relevance:
- Children born into poverty are more likely to experience malnutrition, lack of education, child labor, and trafficking.
- Delayed fertility allows families to break cycles of poverty, ensuring that children have better access to education and resources.
- Young mothers, especially teenage girls, are often forced into economic vulnerability, leading to child marriage, sexual exploitation, and human trafficking.
Advocacy Point:
- Governments must integrate reproductive policies with economic and social protection policies to ensure that children born into any family have financial stability and security.
- Right to Education and Equal Opportunities (UNCRC Articles 28 & 29)
Relevance:
- Early and unplanned pregnancies often interrupt girls’ education, pushing them into economic dependency and limiting their ability to provide for future children.
- Children of economically stable, educated parents are more likely to stay in school and achieve their full potential.
- Adolescent pregnancy is linked to school dropouts, creating a generational cycle where both mother and child face educational barriers.
Advocacy Point:
- Reproductive policies must prioritize delaying fertility to ensure that women and girls complete their education before becoming parents.
- Governments should expand school-based reproductive health programs that combine contraception access with economic and career development programs for young girls.
- Right to a Family and Social Protection (UNCRC Article 27)
Relevance:
- Many children born into unstable environments experience neglect, abuse, and separation from their families due to economic struggles or unprepared parenting.
- Orphanages and foster care systems are overburdened, and lack of support for struggling families contributes to the cycle of poverty.
- Reproductive policies should not only prevent unplanned pregnancies but also support families in raising children in safe and stable environments.
Advocacy Point:
- Governments must align reproductive policies with child protection policies, ensuring that children are born into environments where they have access to stable family structures and social support systems.
- Right to Participation and Decision-Making (UNCRC Article 12)
Relevance:
- Reproductive policies often focus only on adult decision-making without including young people’s perspectives on their own reproductive futures.
- Young people should have a say in family planning policies, especially in regions where early marriage and adolescent pregnancy are common.
- Cultural and societal expectations often prevent young girls from exercising their reproductive rights freely.
Advocacy Point:
- Governments must involve youth voices in reproductive policy development, ensuring that adolescent reproductive health policies are rights-based and inclusive.
Integrating Child Rights into Reproductive Policies: What Needs to Change?
To bridge the gap between reproductive rights and child rights, the following policy changes are also necessary:
- Shift the Focus from Population Control to Child Well-being
- Traditional reproductive policies focused on controlling birth rates rather than ensuring that every child born has access to a secure future.
- CSW69 should advocate for a rights-based approach that prioritizes the child’s quality of life, not just reproductive restrictions.
- Strengthen Economic and Social Protection Policies for Parents
- Delaying fertility must be supported by strong economic policies such as:
✔ Paid parental leave
✔ Childcare subsidies
✔ School reintegration for young mothers - Governments must integrate reproductive health services with economic empowerment programs.
- Expand Legal Protections for Young Mothers and Their Children
- Policies must ensure that young mothers have access to education, job training, and financial support.
- Laws must protect children born from unplanned pregnancies from discrimination and economic hardship.
Key Advocacy Message for CSW69
- Reproductive policies must move beyond fertility control to focus on child well-being.
- Delaying fertility should be a choice, supported by social and economic policies that protect both mothers and children.
- Child rights must be integrated into reproductive health discussions to ensure intergenerational equity and sustainability.
- Governments must invest in reproductive education, social protection, and legal frameworks that allow families to thrive.
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation
-
What is Total Liberation by Telling the Truth? Take Action.
One way to change mindsets is to show someone what they thought and said in the past was objectively wrong, and in ways that likely harmed others.
Work on antiracism shows this.
The core problem driving ecological and political overshoot is a system of political obligation that requires compliance with legal systems without actually empowering constituents to be ecosocially self-determining in a measurable way, relative to a restorative and democratic baseline.That enriches some, while killing many.Fair Start is counsel in a lawsuit against Coca-Cola / Fairlife LLC trying to set deviation from that standard or baseline as what it first and fundamentally means to “harm” others.
We think the United Nations Secretary General should admit to using the same illegal standard, a standard that obligates subjects without empowering them.We are urging the Secretary General and other officials to admit that their and all governmental authority, as well as the entitlements to wealth they protect, derive from and are conditioned on empowering those he and other officials claim to represent, and that without prioritizing Fair Start as the first human right, he has no authority. If he does not tell the truth, he will be using a fundamentally illegal standard for assessing and disclosing costs/benefits, value claims, and imacts, similar to what Coca-Cola has been using.
Governments can’t avoid climate liability by redefining conceptions of things like fraud, political legitimacy, or equity, and what it means to benefit at deadly cost to others. As we show here, there are objective measures for these things.
Fairness comes first. Governments and the concentrations of wealth and power that influence it have no authority or entitlement to create a failed system that kills millions of people and then use that system to measure the harm as a means of hiding their liability
The Secretary General is the highest symbol of representative government, and if he makes clear the need for Fair Start reforms, change will follow. He can avoid equitywashing, or what is really constitutive reparations fraud, and join a community of truly obligated persons trying to constitute a just future.
The Secretary General should start by admitting that he benefited from an equitywashing system that illegally violated children’s birthrights and did more harm to the UN’s values, goals, and impacts than he did to further them.
By doing so, he can move towards the legitimacy of a neutral standard where some do not benefit at deadly cost to others, hiding harm to infants and animals on at least eight levels.
Admitting failure, and communicating an obligation to future children that overrides any obligation to governments and wealth-holders, is a linguistic act of constituting a better future.
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation
Urge the Secretary General to do so here: Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General: Telephone – (212) 963-7160 | Fax – (212)-963-7055.
-
More Children, and Animals, are Being Abused Then Ever Before. Take action.
The United Nations has recently released a report that finds:
The world is at a “pivotal moment’ as violence against children reaches unprecedented levels worldwide.”
Recently, a Delaware couple sentenced to over 150 years in prison for “indescribable” torture of sons by a judge who called the abuse “the most extensive and persistent evil” he has ever seen.
Video from surveillance cameras that monitored the large closet where the boys were kept naked and starving in horrific conditions did not tell the entire story of their suffering, the judge said.
At the same time, more animals are being abused than ever before.
That means more animal suffering and dying in factory farms, and more companion animals suffering than ever before.
TAKE ACTION: The fundamental driver of all child and animal abuse is an outdated system of family laws that prevent parents from being ready before they have kids, and encourages large families even in the face of environmental disaster.
The basic rule for having kids should be to be ready, and not have too many.
Will you assist us in taking action to demand the Secretary General of the United Nations admit that his authority derives from empowering those he claims to represent, and that without prioritizing Fair Start as the first human right, he has no authority? Fairness comes first. The Secretary General is the highest symbol of representative government, and if he makes clear the need for Fair Start reforms, change will follow.
The Secretary General should start by admitting that he benefited from an equitywashing system that illegally violated children’s birthrights and did more harm to the UN’s values, goals, and impacts than he did to further them. By doing so, he can move towards the legitimacy of a neutral standard where some do not benefit at deadly cost to others, hiding harm to infants and animals on at least eight levels.
Background
The Secretary General is using an illegal standard/organizational model fundamentally designed to illegally harm children and animals by exploiting their vulnerability, and undo the value he claims to create in a way that risks millions of lives and will cost businesses trillions of dollars. The standard is illegally benchmarked around the needs of the wealthy children of leadership, at deadly cost to vulnerable children using a false assessment and reporting system.
It’s the fundamental reason leadership is being enriched at deadly cost to mostly children of color. This goes beyond greenwashing and humanewashing to a more fundamental system of equitywashing that subverts civil rights and democracy, and allows free-riding benefits at deadly costs to others. He is using the same fundamentally false standard derived from the twentieth-century subversion of racial justice that is causing our current ecological and political crises to hide full liability for them, including harm to freedom and political legitimacy.
The standard has been used by many of the public interest entities claiming to oppose destructive industries, entities that like those industries can show no capacity to actually constitute a just future through empowering relations.
The illegal standard is designed to:
– Exploit unsustainable growth and levels of consumption that have now reduced the planet’s ability to support infant and animal health, the first objective measure of value.
– Treat children of color as deserving exponentially less resources and more risk, including the violence inherent in unrepresentative government.
– Ensure each person has less capacity to influence their political system as democracy is slowly commercialized, in part because it does not derive and condition governmental authority and entitlement to wealth, and obligation to follow the law, on constituents being measurably empowered. And
– It omits these facts from value claims, hiding conflicts of interest, and the preemptive right to legitimacy reparations that ensure a fair and liberating start in life. This allows the use of wealth made at cost to claimed values and impacts to drown out the efforts of others, through inclusive and constitutive communications, to actually further those values.
We can ask the Secretary Genral: How were you accounting for your work being undone, each day, by violations of children’s birthrights as they entered the world? Would you be willing to derive wealth and authority back, and condition it on, ensuring such birthrights? If you could go back and make that change in our political systems, decades ago, to save millions of lives, would you do it? If you claimed to create value that was being undone by basic inequity, would you not be eager to reform that system and align with your claimed values?
Please consider making a contribution through Donate. Together, we can create lasting change to save next generation.
-
Update: Coca-Cola and Fairlife, Recently Caught Engaging in Horrific Cruelty, Should Tell the Truth.
This blog was originally published March 18, 2025, when Fair Start assisted with the filing of a lawsuit against Coke/Fairliife.
After the filing, Fair Start and TruthAlliance.global filed a notice of preemptive standards with the California Attorney General.
More here: https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/fair-start-movement-urges-california-attorney-general-to-recognize-full-justice-standard-as-preemptive-of-fraud-claims-1035104323
We are now submitting this with a request to the California Attorney General to intervene in the litigation, using the standard we have identified.
Published March 18, 2025:
Fairlife, owned by Coca-Cola, is using milk supplied by dairy farms that abuse animals and pollute the waterways.
Fair Start Movement activists are assisting Animal Recovery Mission and others in holding the companies accountable. How?
Coke/Fairlife used an illegal standard/business model fundamentally designed to illegally harm children and animals by exploiting their vulnerability and undo the value Coke/Fairlife claimed to create in a way that risks millions of lives and will cost businesses trillions of dollars.
The standard is designed to assess and report values and impacts out of context. It is the single largest driver of the harms we see in the case, and it begins with zero functional protections for the most vulnerable. That’s illegal.
The standard is illegally benchmarked around the needs of the wealthy children of leadership, at deadly cost to vulnerable children using a false assessment and reporting system. This means making up numbers that hide the damage being done.
Coke/Fairlife should start fixing this by admitting that they benefitted from an equitywashing system, that through inequitable growth, illegally violated children’s birthright to political equity, and did more harm to their advertised values and impacts than they did to further them. By doing so, the companies can move towards the legitimacy of a neutral standard where some do not benefit at deadly cost to others.
That anthrocentric and unsustainable standard is the largest single variable causing the harm, and it hides harm to infants and animals on at least eight levels. It hides the fact that we have a moral and legal duty to move Coke’s extreme wealth, made at illegal and deadly climatological and other costs to children, or suffer the consequences of continuing to let those kids die.
We can’t use the same fundamentally illegal standard that caused the climate crisis to evade liability for it — that’s fraud.
The standard is the fundamental reason their leadership is being enriched at deadly cost to mostly children of color. This goes beyond greenwashing and humanewashing to a more fundamental system of equitywashing that subverts civil rights and democracy and allows free-riding benefits at costs to others. They are using the same fundamentally false standard derived from the “separate but equal” twentieth-century subversion of racial justice movements and the hiding of liability inherent in generational white wealth that is causing our current ecological and political crises.
Equity is a state of empowerment to allow us to accurately and fairly determine what is “green” and “humane.
The standard has been used by many of the public interest entities claiming to oppose destructive industries like animal agriculture, entities that, like those industries, use performative interventions that do more to protect generational wealth for their biggest funders than to accomplish their missions.
Many start their work by discounting the lives of future animals and infants, in contravention of their stated causes. Many animal rights and law organizations have challenged the idea that animals are property at a micro and mostly performative level, but their acceptance of it at a macro level has done way more harm to animals than they have done good, given the way their out-of-context impact and values claims have for decades hidden this larger issue.
The Coke/Fairlife standard is designed to:
- Exploit unsustainable growth and levels of consumption that have now reduced the planet’s ability to support infant and animal health, the first and overriding objective measure of value.
- The standard ensures inequitable and unsustainable growth, violation of children’s birthrights, and the denial of the ecological, social, and political thresholds children need to thrive. This has done more harm to our values than any of us have done to further them, and hiding that is fraud, or benefitting at deadly and illegal costs by omitting the daily undoing of the value we claim to create.
- This is especially so because the growth treats children of color as deserving exponentially fewer resources and more risk, including the violence inherent in unrepresentative government. This is the subversion of racial justice by whites who freeride on their illegal birth positionality, using their wealth to control people’s perception of truth and value. All authority to govern and to own wealth derives from the inclusion of those subject to the governance or wealth as free and equal persons in the political system, with one person/one influential vote. But by 1968, governments had taken equity out of reproductive rights systems so that this crucial, physical inclusion never occurred. Rather, the doctrine of separate but equal was maintained at an existential level. The exploitation of children for economic growth became the standard, and freedom was taken out of context.
- The standard ensures each person has less capacity to influence their political system as democracy bloats and is slowly commercialized, in part because it does not derive and condition governmental authority, entitlement to wealth, and the obligation to follow the law on constituents being measurably empowered.
- The standard omits these facts from impact and value claims, hiding conflicts of interest and the preemptive right to equity/legitimacy reparations that ensure a fair and liberating start in life. This allows the use of wealth (which was made at cost to the claimed values ) to drown out the efforts of others through inclusive and constitutive communications that are accurately obligatory, or bottom-up, to further those values.
- Doing so undercuts true obligations to others and ensures violence by making representative governance impossible.
We can ask Coke/Fairlife, the charities they back, as well as the charities that engaged for decades in a charade of opposing entities like Coke/Fairlife, the same questions:
How were you accounting for your work being undone each day by violations of children’s birthrights as they entered the world? Would you be willing to derive wealth and authority back and condition it on ensuring such birthrights? If you could go back and make that change in our political systems decades ago to save millions of lives, would you do it? If you claimed to create value that was being undone by basic inequity, would you not be eager to reform that system and align with your claimed values?
Climate reparations owed by those who used the illegal standard are a form of self-defense, and the obligation to pay them should fall on the adult children of the wealthy until justice is done.
I think the below starts to answer the question. Shall we bring out today, as I add a section using this https://fairstartmovement.org/
coca-cola-and-fairlife- recently-caught-engaging-in- horrific-cruelty-should-tell- the-truth/ and this Measuring the costs of illegitimacy.
Central to the economics literature on climate change is the Social Cost of Carbon. This is a calculation that attempts to assign a price to the wellbeing lost for every ton of Carbon emitted. It has been shown that these estimates are highly sensitive to the discount rate used to model damages. For example, decreasing the discount rate from 5% to 2.5% often increases the estimated damages by a factor of 5.Please consider making a contribution here to further the work of Fair Start: Donate.
Together, we can create lasting change to save the next generations.
