Can Economics Save the Environment?

We need to be smarter in how we think about climate change. In this episode of #NewEconomicThinking Harvard Kennedy School professor Joseph Aldy describes how economics can help by bridging the gaps between scientists, policy makers, employers and citizens.

[@simplesustainability]

Given that output (GDP) growth literally means greater encroachment on the ecological life support systems that keep the Earth habitable, I’ll stick with a no.

[@alo004]

GDP growth does not imply greater encroachment on the ecological life support systems. GDP is a measure of how you, and everybody else, value those ecological life support systems, and what is produced from them. If you manage to produce higher-valued goods/outputs while using fewer resources, you can achieve GDP growth without depleting any resources whatsoever. The conflict between GDP growth and environmental protection/resources is not a given. Quite to the contrary, the countries that had higher GDP growth in the past century are now those investing the largest portions of GDP into protecting the environment. Economic growth as defined by GDP is not necessarily a barrier to environmental protection, it is maybe even an absolutely necessary prerequisite.

[@simplesustainability]

@@alo004 The rapid pace of technological development has fuelled illusory hopes that we may one day 'angelise' GDP, or in other words decouple output growth from its environmental impact. However, in reality, there are physical limits to the efficiency with which we can convert a finite set of resources into value. Perhaps the clearest of these limits is that human beings cannot eat telemarketing, nor drink financial assets, no matter how efficient the economy becomes. Human activity is inherently coupled with a physical impact on the Earth's biosphere; we may of course reduce that impact via technology gains, but never bring it to zero. You also mentioned the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis, that increases in GDP (beyond a certain inflection point) actually lead to a smaller environmental impact. This seems intuitive at first, largely due to historical successes in reducing levels of pollution through implementing ‘end of pipe’ technologies (catalytic converters; sewage treatment etc.) and the offshoring of manufacturing in wealthier countries. However, empirical evidence shows that carbon emissions, nutrient pollution, plastic waste, and almost every environmental impact you can think of, increases linearly with GDP on a global scale. The central reason for this, again, is that economic activity is a *physical* quantity. The economy is a metabolism, and as such requires both more energy AND physical resources to function as it continues to expand. That is why GDP growth necessarily increases humanity’s aggregate encroachment on ecological life support systems, and furthermore why you can’t have infinite growth on a finite planet. Happy to provide citations for any claims above!

[@elarakamai]

Not until the structure of production changes to a circular economy where there is no longer externalization of cost to the commons.

[@MirkoskjiVero]

And the stability of economy is not based on growth of consumption

[@LeseLotta]

Thanks for this video with some interesting thoughts and perspectives! Kind of shocked to see the comments here - these people seem to come from different schools of thought and unfortunately it seems as if the gap between them can hardly be bridged.

[@myvoda4672]

This video not clear voice

[@jagritchatli5704]

I love this channel.

[@drgedyatmadja]

Yes

[@BobQuigley]

co2 emissions due to high mpg lead to more vehicles per person globally. Until we 'cost' total life cycles of all products using cost as an excuse to not move forward is a straw man argument. Fracking has never once made a profit for exploring/drilling ops. $360 billion loss from day one. In addition cleanup [fracking oil is low quality] of sites, disposal of hazardous waste after refining, very large electricity footprint of entire process escapes costing.

[@myvoda4672]

Namaste

[@TheRantingRooster]

The simple answer is no, Economics can not save the environment. "Economics" today is based on "Capitalism", which requires infinite growth, on a finite resource restricted planet. Capitalism, fundamentally is based on "competition", which is a zero sum game, i.e. winners, and losers, which defines "class", i.e. Capitalist class (winners) and the Labor class (i.e. losers). Competition wastes vast amounts of resources for what? A better society or the rich getting richer at the expense of the livable habitat for human life. We can not solve these crisis with the same "economic" thinking that got us here.

[@michaelhoexter6889]

Professor Aldy seems not to fully understand the difference between real and financial assets/goods/services. You cannot adequately address climate change and the existential threat that it represents without an analytically rigorous distinction between the REAL threat of climate catastrophe and the largely artificial constructs like money and monetary cost. Because he mixes these up, his presentation here seems kind of glib and superficial. Also that he starts off talking about the real perceivable local pollution damages as somehow pivotal in motivating climate action. They are a marginal benefit of thoroughgoing climate action but this still is assuming a world where people are hedonic beings alone and just looking to marginally improve their lives. Any effective climate policy is going to have to deal with existential threats and the human ability to anticipate dangers in the future.

[@MirkoskjiVero]

I have an idea, but I'm not an economics scholar. I was thinking: if money is entirely digital, it means that its limitation becomes entirely artificial. Now the basics to consider something an economic good is that it should be a limited resource. But virtual money is theoretically limitless. So money shouldn't be considered a resource, rather a tool. Is this a reasonable thought?

[@leandrrob]

i love this channel but this guy really seems to be on the pockets of poluting corporations, the same old carbon market that was used to stop real action 15 years ago, "we really need to reduce emissions in developing countries" no you really need to reduce emissions on rich countries, this is your number 1, number 2 and number 3 priority, "we need to think of how we gonna finance that" you mean good guy corporation from rich country that is destroyng the plannet will save us by givng some small tax to a poor country? how convinient

[@decentrifytech]

Capitalism is the root cause of climate change. Let's make it simple to understand: 1. Capitalism forces you to work, converting Earth's resources into money to live, using fossil fuels --> 2. That process destroys the biosphere and emits a medley of greenhouse gasses --> 3. And due to physics, chemistry, thermodynamics and the carbon cycle, this gradually raises the Earth's temperature and climate systems --> 4. Feedback loops in Earth systems exacerbate climate change WHILE 5. Capitalist market economics demands constant growth and sustained cyclical consumerism to function --> 6. More destruction of the biosphere in order to feed market capitalism Why can't people accept that capitalism is the root driver of climate change? I hear so few people saying the truth, let alone accepting it. Is it too inconvenient for you? Are you afraid of cutting back on your 1st world lifestyle? Does it strike at your identity under capitalism? Stop living in denial; you cannot deny physics, chemistry, thermodynamics and the carbon cycle - physics doesn't care about your emotions or your religious economic beliefs. We simply do not have a sustainable way of living on this planet.

[@mechabits197]

dream on, trying to add some cred to economics

[@mierypesado6740]

what specifically in the 18 minute video did you disagree with?