Economists and Environmental Scientists: Varied Views on Key Issues

Picture a scenario where two doctors are examining a patient with chronic pain. The first doctor targets the painful area in an attempt to alleviate the symptom, while the second takes a holistic approach, considering the role of stress, fear, or triggers affecting the nervous system. This difference in perspectives leads to distinct treatment plans.

In environmental discussions, a similar divergence occurs. Experts frequently debate which environmental solutions are most effective, often clashing over priorities and compromises. A recent study by my colleagues and me suggests that this difference may arise from varying perceptions among economists and environmental scientists regarding which environmental issues hold the most significance.

The global survey, involving 2,365 researchers who contribute to leading economic and environmental science publications, asked participants to identify up to nine pressing environmental concerns. The findings reveal two distinct fields viewing the same global challenges through different lenses.

The environmental issues that researchers prioritize influence the solutions they advocate. For instance, those who primarily recognize climate change are inclined to support market-driven solutions like carbon taxes. Conversely, those who identify broader issues such as biodiversity loss or pollution tend to endorse more systemic approaches.

Climate change emerged as the most frequently cited issue, mentioned by approximately 70% of respondents. The integrity of the biosphere, essentially the decline in nature, was the second most mentioned category at 51%.

Other critical environmental pressures vital for planetary stability received less attention. Novel entities, encompassing synthetic chemicals and plastics, were noted by about 43%, while biogeochemical flows, which include fertilizers, were mentioned by about 9%. Ocean acidification was acknowledged by roughly 8%.

There are notable differences in the problem maps of economists and environmental scientists. Comparatively, environmental researchers identified a broader array of issues than economists.

Both groups were equally likely to mention climate change and related issues like greenhouse gas emissions or air pollution. However, discrepancies emerged regarding issues less directly tied to carbon, such as biodiversity, land system changes, novel entities, and pollution.

This divergence can be attributed to the distinct focus of each discipline. Economists often concentrate on prices, incentives, and policies related to carbon emissions, making climate change a central concern.

Different solution preferences

Participants were also asked to evaluate the potential of seven approaches to mitigate environmental issues, all receiving at least moderate potential ratings.

Technological advancements were rated highest overall, while non-violent civil disobedience received the lowest ratings. Economists favored market-based solutions and technological innovations more than environmental researchers, who placed higher value on the degrowth of the global economy and non-violent civil disobedience.

Our analysis revealed a pattern: researchers who identified a broader range of environmental issues were more likely to perceive systemic approaches like environmental regulation, degrowth, and non-violent civil disobedience as having higher potential. Conversely, they perceived technological advances as having lower potential.

Economists and environmental scientists frequently advise governments, participate in expert panels, and shape what constitutes a solution. When these influential groups start with different issue priorities, it’s unsurprising that they advocate different solutions.

This perspective also sheds light on why some debates appear stalled. If climate change is the sole focus, cleaner technologies and market incentives seem sufficient. However, recognizing issues like biodiversity loss, chemical pollution, and land system change complicates matters, indicating the need for broader changes in production, consumption, and economic organization.

This topic is further explored in our related work on green growth, which examines whether countries can continue to grow GDP while minimizing environmental harm. Survey data shows that researchers across disciplines remain skeptical about achieving simultaneous GDP growth and rapid reductions in emissions and resource use.

Economists generally hold a more optimistic view than Earth, agricultural, and biology scientists, with these differences aligning with faith in technology and markets.

Reaching consensus on solutions requires agreement on the underlying issues. While a shared understanding of environmental challenges beyond carbon alone might not resolve them, it can foster more productive research, discussions about trade-offs, and broaden the range of solutions considered.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 47,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.