Imagine someone with chronic pain. Some doctors focus on the painful part of the body and keep trying to solve that single symptom. Other studies are using a more holistic brain-body approach, trying to understand what is sending the nervous system into alarm mode, perhaps stress, fear of symptoms, or learned triggers. They look at the problem from a different perspective and therefore resort to completely different treatments.

A similar thing happens in discussions about the environment. experts sometimes discuss Which solution is most effective? And we often disagree about priorities and tradeoffs. However, my colleagues and I recently study This suggests that division may begin even earlier. Economists and environmental scientists have different perceptions about which environmental issues are most relevant.

In a global survey of 2,365 researchers, We asked people who publish in leading economics and environmental science journals to name up to nine environmental issues that they think are most relevant today. The answer shows that the two fields are looking at the same planet through different lenses.

The environmental problems researchers have noticed are tied to the solutions they recommend. If you are primarily aware of climate change, you are more likely to see potential in traditional market-based solutions (such as implementing a carbon tax). The more we recognize environmental issues such as biodiversity loss and pollution, the more we can see the potential for broader, systemic solutions.

Climate change was the most frequently mentioned issue category across the sample. About 70% of respondents cited it. The second most common category cited by 51% was the integrity of the biosphere, which is essentially the loss of nature.

Due to some environmental pressures, important Because far fewer researchers have mentioned the stability of our planet. Approximately 43% of new entities were listed, such as synthetic chemicals and plastics. Biogeochemical flows, including fertilizers, were approximately 9%. Ocean acidification was about 8%.

Economists and environmental scientists have different problem maps. When comparing fields, environmental researchers enumerated more and broader problem categories than economists.

Both were equally likely to mention climate change and closely related issues such as greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. This gap manifested itself in issues not directly related to carbon, such as biodiversity, land system change, new presence, and pollution.

One possible reason for these differences is that different disciplines are trained to notice different things. Like photographers, we tend to focus on what our field frames. Economists often study prices, incentives, and policies around carbon emissions, so climate change is a natural focus.

Preference for different solutions

We also asked respondents to rate the potential of seven approaches to mitigating environmental problems. All approaches were rated as having at least moderate potential.

Overall, technological advances were rated highest and nonviolent civil disobedience rated lowest. Economists valued market-based solutions and technological advances more highly than environmental researchers. Environmental researchers valued global economic degrowth and nonviolent civil disobedience more highly than economists.

Next, we looked at whether researchers who cited a broader range of environmental problems tended to favor different types of solutions, even after accounting for factors such as political orientation and field of study.

A pattern has emerged. Naming more categories was associated with greater perceived likelihood of more systemic approaches, such as environmental regulation, degrowth, and nonviolent civil disobedience. Naming more problems was also associated with lower perceived potential for technological progress.

Economists and environmental scientists often advise governments, sit on expert committees, and shape what counts as solutions. When two influential groups of experts start from different shortlists of what a problem is, it’s no wonder they end up endorsing different solutions.

It also helps explain why some discussions have stalled. It’s easier to believe in cleaner technologies and market incentives when the only relevant issue is climate change. If we also consider biodiversity loss, chemical pollution, and land system change, then it no longer seems like an engineering problem. It begins to look like a number of interrelated pressures that require changes in the way we produce, consume and organize our economies.

The topic comes up In our related research on green growththe idea that countries can continue to increase their GDP while reducing damage to the environment. Using our survey data, we find that researchers from a variety of disciplines are far from confident that societies can continue to grow GDP while reducing emissions and resource use fast enough.

Economists were generally more optimistic than geoscientists, agricultural scientists, and biologists. These differences are underpinned by trust in technology and the market.

If we don’t agree on the map, we can’t agree on the route. Even if we share a better picture of the environmental crisis, which goes beyond just carbon, it may not be solved magically. However, it could lead to more fruitful exploration and discussion of trade-offs and widen the range of solutions considered.

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

Get our weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes a short email, “Imagine,” that digs a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join over 47,000 readers who have already subscribed.