When it comes to climate change decision makers always tell you follow and respect the science.
When it comes to pandemics like Covid 19 decision makers always told you to respect and follow the science, ...
BUT when it comes to economics, decision makers are not calling for follow and respect the science. They quietly have apparently moved away of requiring economics to stay a science.
Since 2012 when decision makers avoided to shift from traditional market thinking to green market thinking, the science based evolution point a la Thomas Kuhn as there was consensus then for paradigm change, they have slowly move away from science by going dwarf green markets a la environmental externality management first, and now it seems they are going to square one, circular economic thinking, a thinking totally delinked from the problem we are supposed to be trying to solve, the environmental problem.
Hence, there are science based ways to fix the environmental problem and there are non-science based to patch and manage the environmental problem.
But science follows the scientific truth, if the science does not support what those decision makers want to do, no matter how much they play with the theory and the practice, why support thinking not based on science aimed at perpetuating the problem?
And this raises the question: If climate change action is based on science and the economy to implement it is not, is that good for the environment?
I think No, what do you think? If you think Yes, why? If you think No, why no?
Note; This is an academic question, not a political one.
I recommend you the latest book titled ,,Eco-Politics and Global Climate Change” (Springer Nature 2024), in which you will find the answer to your question.
The question presupposes that science is always good for the environment. Yet there is no evidence to support this as always being true. To the contrary, I can think of several examples of where science has led to the development of technology / processes having environmentally damaging outcomes.
Perhaps a tighter reformulation of the question is needed.
Janusz, thank for writing. I am interested in your views or the views of participants as third parties can not be here to defend or expand their ideas.
Do you have a view on the answer to this question? If yes, please share it and I will reply. If you read the context of this question I think that the answer is Not and I have my reason to believe so.
If you have your own views, then if you answer is No, why do you think so? If you answer is Yes, why do you think so?
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Paul, thank you for writing. Please read the context on which this question is based, it is specifically about scientific consistency to addressing environmental problems....Science based climate change action requires science based economics to implement it in a consistent way to address properly the environmental issue, but if the economic approach is no longer science based/it is inconsistent with Thomas Kuhn's paradigm evolution loop.
So the question is simply about in other words whether implementing a science based climate change action program through non-science based economic thinking, is that good for the environment?
I appreciate your time
Lucio
Lucio, I think ,,yes” because actions related to climate change or maintaining biodiversity must be based on science, because only reliable scientific findings are able to first diagnose the state of degradation of the natural environment, and then indicate the directions and methods of necessary actions and solutions. This is the starting point. If economics is not currently able to implement these solutions, it does not change their scientific truth and necessity of implementation. Moreover, maybe economics will be able to help such an implementation in the future. Therefore, one should look for non-standard economic solutions, such as Global Biogovernance (more altruistic and supranational, and less egoistic and national) or synergistic economic solutions in international communities (e.g. the European Union).
Janusz, the question is just aboUt CLIMATE CHANGE AND ECONOMICs.
The point is that climate change action is based on science, ECONOMIC ACTION/Climate change economic thinking or the circular economy thinking is not. If climate change action were implemented through green market thinking, then there is no scientific inconsistency. Can you now see that?
Is implementing a science based approach using non-science based tools/pollution production markets means there is scientific inconsistency, is that good for the environment?
The answer is Not and I hope you can see why the answer is No,
Respectfully yours
Lucio
Lucio, producers negatively impacting climate change can benefit from scientific activities aimed at climate protection, there is no contradiction here. Non-science-based tools can be environmentally beneficial because they are practical rather than theoretical. they are supposed to implement theories and are only of service role to the world of practice. Circular economy can based on knowledge and innovation but can use unscientific i.e. practical tools to implement science based approaches. Therefore Climate change actions based on science can be complementary with economic actions based on non-science Tools. In sum, that is good for environment.
Janusz, can you solve the climate change problem USING pollution production markets?
Lucio, for example, technological universities have scientifically developed high-efficiency chimney filters that reduce pollutant emissions. It is enough to impose mandatory regulations on polluting markets forcing the use of such technologies. This regulatory solution can be achieved, for example, through supranational agreements.
Janusz, you are contradicting your self, each time you bring examples related to how to manage the pollution production problem. If your goal is a world under PERMANENT pollution production management, then your thinking is fine. If the goal is to fix the root cause of the pollution production problem then you need GREEN markets, pollution reduction markets.
Since You think is okay to implement a science based climate change program to address the environmental crises using market tools that FEED the pollution crisis, let's leave it here and agree to disagree.
Respectfully yours!
Lucio
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Statistics
- Survey