Implications: ocean sustainability may be overstated, and policies should target the weakest-performing goals. Since similar methods are widely used, this issue likely affects many other composite indices as well! [6/6]

Findings: sustainability goals are not seen as equally important, and strong compensation across goals is rejected. Incorporating these preferences lowers average index scores by ~20%... [5/6]

Case study: the Ocean Health Index (OHI). We elicit preferences from the general population in 12 coastal countries and compare them to the index’s current aggregation assumptions... [4/6]

Problem: these choices shape sustainability indices, but are usually implicit, not evidence-based.
We introduce a framework to align index aggregation with stakeholder preferences, rather than relying on hidden assumptions... [3/6]

Are some sustainability goals more important than others? And by how much should success in one area be able to offset failure in another?... [2/6]

All of these would work I guess. My point is still that there is nothing unreconcilable about the two statements so it's not at all mind-boggling that Trump supporters buy into this narrative.

Hmm okay I understand.. honestly, sometimes I wonder why the US isn't even more dominant, given their lead in so many industries/technologies - and I can conceive a world where they are, with more favourable trade terms :)

(which doesn't mean that I think they're "terribly cheated" currently)

Not supporting the tarrifs but why should these two statements not be reconcilable?

well-deserved! ☺️

fair point 😄

One could be nitpicking that it's not the cost of *each* tonne but it's a good start and hopefully grabs attention:)

In FFM zu sein reicht schon alleine für das Dolce Vita :)