You must log in or register to comment.
Yeah, that’s a disaster. Why would we constrain carbon emissions mitigation by neoclassical economic principles? Is the fundamental question for them how to maximize shareholder value while mitigating emissions?
Decide to what do first according to climatologists then turn to economists to make it happen. Put economics profession in its place as secondary to literally everything. It’s a means to an end.
You that there are more schools of economic thought than just neoclassical, right?
Economics is the study of how resources work and how to distribute them, it kind of matters for a globe spanning problem that is highly dependent on the distribution of resources.
Ignoring the fundamental limits of what can actually be done is how you spend fifty years pouring vast sums of effort and funding into carbon capture because the climatologists say we need fuel to not have an impact on overal carbon levels, and we can turn air carbon into fuel in a lab, so just make it work already economists.
I have been studying Doughnut Theory. IMO its all about metrics/measurement and Doughnut Theory gives a robust way to measure the actual health of an economy/society. You got your social foundations which you have to ensure everyone gets, and you have your ecological ceilings which are your limits on natural resource use/extraction. So the challenge is how do you build business, finance and law to do that.
I don’t want to believe that maybe it’s already too late.
