Economists and environmental scientists see the world differently – here’s why that matters
Imagine someone has chronic pain. One doctor focuses on the body part that hurts and keeps trying to fix that single symptom. Another uses a more comprehensive brain-body approach and tries to understand what’s keeping the nervous system stuck in alarm mode – perhaps stress, fear of symptoms or learned triggers. Because they’re looking at the problem differently, they’ll resort to completely different treatments.
Something similar happens in environmental debates. Experts sometimes argue about which solutions work best and often disagree about priorities and trade-offs. But my colleagues and I recently published a study suggesting that the divide may start even earlier: economists and environmental scientists have different perceptions of which environmental issues are most relevant.
In a global survey of 2,365 researchers who publish in leading economics and environmental science journals, we asked them to list up to nine environmental issues they think are most relevant today. The answers show two fields looking at the same planet through different lenses.
The environmental issues that researchers notice are linked to the solutions they recommend. If they mainly recognise climate change, they are more likely to see potential in conventional, market-based solutions (such as introducing a carbon tax). If they recognise further environmental issues such as biodiversity loss or pollution, they are more likely to see potential in broader, more systemic solutions.
Climate change was by far the most often mentioned issue category across the entire sample. About 70% of respondents listed it. The second most common category mentioned by 51% was biosphere integrity, which is essentially the loss of nature.
Several environmental pressures that are critical for our planet’s stability were mentioned by far fewer researchers. Novel entities, which include synthetic chemicals and plastics, were listed by about 43%. Biogeochemical flows, which include fertiliser, were at about 9%. Ocean acidification was about 8%.
Economists and environmental scientists have different problem maps. When we compared fields, environmental researchers listed more and broader issue categories than economists.
Both were equally likely to mention climate change and other closely related issues like greenhouse gas emissions or air pollution. The gaps appeared for issues less directly tied to carbon such as biodiversity, land system change, novel entities and pollution.
One possible reason for these differences is that distinct disciplines are trained to notice different things. Like photographers, we tend to focus on what our field puts in the frame. Economists often study prices, incentives and policies around carbon emissions, so climate change is a natural centre of gravity.
Different solution preferences
We also asked respondents to rate the potential of seven approaches for mitigating environmental issues. All approaches were rated with at least moderate potential.
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.
Then, we looked at whether researchers who named a broader range of environmental issues also tended to favour different kinds of solutions, even after accounting for things like political orientation and research field.
A pattern emerged: naming more categories was associated with higher perceived potential for more systemic approaches such as environmental regulation, degrowth and non-violent civil disobedience. Naming more issues was also associated with lower perceived potential for technological advances.
Economists and environmental scientists often advise governments, sit on expert panels and shape what counts as a solution. If two influential expert groups are starting from different shortlists of what the problem is, it’s no surprise they end up championing different fixes.
It also helps explain why some debates feel stuck. If climate change 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.
That topic comes up in our related work on green growth, the idea that countries can keep increasing GDP while reducing environmental harm. Using data from our survey, we found that researchers across disciplines were far from convinced that societies can keep growing GDP while cutting emissions and resource use fast enough.
Economists were generally more optimistic than Earth, agricultural and biology scientists. Those differences lined up with faith in technology and markets.
You can’t agree on the route if you don’t agree on the map. A more shared picture of the environmental crisis, beyond carbon alone, might not magically solve it. But it can lead to more fruitful research and discussions about trade offs and widen the scope of solutions being 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.
Manuel Suter receives funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (Postdoc Mobility Fellowship: P500PS_225579) and is a member of the organisation "Degrowth Switzerland".