It’s no great suprise that economists and environmental scientists are aware of different issues when it comes to #ClimateBreakdown and therefore champion different solutions.
Having worked with economists, there are some doing fantastic work in terms of energy economics…but I doubt they would know much about ocean acidification for example. You might argue, why should they?
The problem is that economists tend to have the ear of the Treasury far more than scientists.
The Treasury wants technical and market based solutions. Economists are only too happy to advise.
But what if the problem doesn’t require money - it actually requires time or a change of practice.
These kind of approaches should be considered equally, but you have to consider that the Treasury is the most powerful organ of government.
The power of the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is too often overlooked in this country, because the holders tend not to be charismatic.
‘Overall, technological advances were rated highest and non-violent civil disobedience lowest.
#Economists rated market-based solutions and technological advances higher than environmental researchers.
#Environmental researchers rated degrowth of the global economy and non-violent civil disobedience higher than economists.’
‘If #climatechange is the only relevant issue you see, it’s easier to put your faith in cleaner tech and market incentives.
If you also see #biodiversity loss, chemical pollution and land system change as problems, it no longer looks like an engineering issue.
It starts to look like lots of connected pressures that need changes in how we produce, consume and organise the economy.’
We need scientists to collaborate more with economists and interdisciplinary research funding to enable this.
💯
And now bring societal issues like inequality, colonization and exploitation in the mix.
Just focusing on shiny tech is truly not the answer...
