Ambitious. Utopian. Crackpot. These are some of the responses to last month’s post by Global Justice Report by economist Lucas Chancel of the Paris-based World Inequality Lab and his 44 co-authors. The report, which is based on modeling studies, proposes ideas on how to create greater global equality and economic prosperity while staying within planetary boundaries (see go.nature.com/4whtuzw).

How to end poverty and protect the Earth: within the debate that destroys the economy

Such a task is urgent. Since 2020, poverty reduction around the world has slowed or is in reverse, while wealth inequality is increasing. At the same time, most planetary boundaries, such as climate regulation, species abundance, and freshwater availability, have surpassed what researchers consider “safe and fair” limits.^1,2.

But finding a way for people in all countries to access the most basic needs – quality education, meaningful work and affordable healthcare – has so far eluded all those who have tried, as the United Nations’ latest report on the Sustainable Development Goals attests (see go.nature.com/4pjrwtk). The challenge of achieving them within the limits of Earth system processes makes the task even more difficult.

The science of inequality

It is not surprising then that the Global Justice Report has a radical recipe: a planetary-scale redistribution of wealth and income by increasing taxes at a global level, mainly affecting those with fortunes of hundreds of millions of dollars. The taxes would be collected by a new body, called the Global Justice Fund, which would redistribute the money to invest in climate, education, health and other causes through national dividends allocated on an equitable per capita basis. Investment returns from another body, the Global Sovereign Fund, would pay the dividends. The authors also propose a new international reserve currency and a UN-administered central bank to replace the International Monetary Fund in Washington DC.

If the recommendations were followed, the report estimates that by 2100, the per capita income of all people worldwide could be €5,000 (US$5,700) per month, with fewer working hours than today and with global warming maintained at 1.8°C above pre-industrial levels. The authors say all of this can be achieved if there is political will, but they rightly anticipate opposition, particularly from some of the wealthiest companies and countries. In fact, their models suggest that their recipe could still achieve a result close to the desired one if the United States did not participate.

Why the world can’t afford the rich

The absence of a policy roadmap to implement these findings is one reason this work has attracted the ire of some researchers. Also at issue is that the study directly challenges some conventions in the practice of economics, such as the idea that prosperity comes from economic growth as measured by gross domestic product and that some degree of inequality is necessary to achieve growth.

The report timely raises some of the same questions that many policymakers are considering, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Taken as a group (but excluding China), those nations will need to collectively raise more than $1 trillion annually by 2030 to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to extreme weather conditions, and finance the costs of loss and damage that many are already experiencing due to global warming. Until now, they have struggled to get even a fraction of the funds promised for this purpose by countries with historically much higher carbon emissions.

Reducing inequality benefits everyone; So why doesn’t it happen like that?

Furthermore, the Global Justice Report It comes at a time when many countries are concerned about inequality and are looking to researchers for answers. Between 2000 and 2024, the richest 1% of people captured 41% of all new wealth created in the world, according to a report on the state of knowledge on inequality that was published last year under South Africa’s presidency of the G20 group of the world’s 20 largest economies (see go.nature.com/4wrehdz).

Aware of disagreements among researchers, the authors of the G20 report, led by economist and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, recommended the creation of an international panel on inequality similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). When the IPCC was established in 1988, there was no consensus on the influence of humans on global warming. The effect of human-induced climate change has been recognized since 1995.³and then strengthened after thousands of researchers collaborated through the IPCC reporting process to evaluate the literature.

The panel on inequality is expected to get the green light from the UN in September. Imraan Valodia, an economist at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, who is on the panel’s founding committee, says members will work on the causes and consequences of inequality, among other things. The founders want researchers from diverse backgrounds to participate in the panel’s activities. Disagreement in research is healthy and often necessary. But with so much at stake and little time to lose, policymakers are asking the research community for the best shared understanding available.

The authors of the Global Justice Report They could easily plead guilty to utopianism (or idealism), secure in the knowledge that they have made a significant contribution to an important debate. All those with relevant knowledge should participate in the work of the inequality panel and help guide its conclusions. The alternative – standing still in the midst of growing social, economic and environmental problems – is not an option, not least because it will be an injustice to future generations.