The necessity of reading between the lines: an example

Even otherwise fine articles have text like this:

In summary, if we assume that individuals have 100% control and agency over their direct emissions and over all emissions embedded in their consumption, then the consumption approach is indeed a powerful framework for assessing responsibility inequalities. However, if we assume that the rate of control over the indirect emissions embedded in individual consumption (let us call this parameter α) is less than 100%, the mixed approach arguably provides a more appropriate framework. In this framework, α ≈ 80%. If α is assumed to be 0, then the ownership approach appears as a more appropriate framework for assessing emissions responsibilities. Note here that the ownership framework assumes that individuals have 100% agency and control over their direct emissions (we call this parameter β). However, in practice, the use of personal gasoline vehicles or home heating devices is often constrained. This is especially true at the bottom of the distribution due to location, housing type and/or income constraints. If α = 0 and β < 1, the ownership approach should be seen as a lower bound on emissions inequality. Of course, in practice, the α and β parameters might vary at the individual level.

An interlinear translation:

If we assume that individuals have 100% control and agency over their direct emissions and over all emissions embedded in their consumption [WHICH, OF COURSE, IS IMPOSSIBLE], then the consumption approach is indeed [INSTEAD READ, “TAUTOLOGICALLY“] a powerful framework for assessing responsibility inequalities. However, if we assume that the rate of control [WE COPE PRECISELY BECAUSE WE CAN’T CONTROL] over the indirect emissions embedded in individual consumption (let us call this parameter α) is less than 100%, the mixed approach arguably [HOW ARGUABLE IS THE CIRCULARITY?] provides a more appropriate framework. In this framework, α ≈ 80% [NICE TOUCH, THE VERISIMILITUDE OF THOSE “~”]. If α is assumed to be 0, then the ownership approach appears as [“IS BY DEFINITION ONLY”] a more appropriate framework for assessing emissions responsibilities. Note here that the ownership framework assumes that individuals have 100% agency and control over their direct emissions [. . .THIS WAY MADNESS] (we call this parameter β). However, in practice, the use of personal gasoline vehicles or home heating devices is often [“IS ALWAYS”] constrained. This is especially true at the bottom of the distribution due to location, housing type and/or income constraints. If α = 0 and β < 1, the ownership approach should be seen as a lower bound on emissions inequality. Of course, in practice, the α and β parameters might [“MIGHT”? MIGHT?? RATHER: “BY NECESSITY”] vary at the individual level.