Close Menu
    Wissenschaft

    Eine neue Studie zeigt, dass eine Mehrheit der Menschen auf der ganzen Welt den Schutz der Umwelt dem Wirtschaftswachstum vorzieht, wenn die beiden Ziele im Widerspruch stehen


    Eine neue Studie zeigt, dass eine Mehrheit der Menschen auf der ganzen Welt den Schutz der Umwelt dem Wirtschaftswachstum vorzieht, wenn die beiden Ziele im Widerspruch stehen

    https://www.uvm.edu/gund/news/global-study-finds-majority-people-worldwide-prioritize-environmental-protection-over

    View 12 Comments

    12 Kommentare

    2. GraphicH on

      Most people just want to live a relatively happy, safe life, we’ve got a minority of borderline psychopaths whose emotional or mental holes cannot be filled by literally billions of dollars of wealth. The kind of growth we’ve seen post industrial revolution is actually pretty uncharacteristic in history and the anxiety over sustaining it that seems to obsess many governments for various reasons seems to come at the expense of not just the environment, but the mental well being of most people.

    3. Not_a_N_Korean_Spy on

      If we are talking abour climate change, it is a false dicothomy.

      It is sad that people don’t understand that not protecting the environment will decimate „the economy“.

    4. Tashum on

      It’s unfortunate then that the majority of people don’t get to decide policy instead of a minority of greedy elites.

    5. Mandar666 on

      Yeah, this is a tough one to measure. I 100% will pick “protect the environment” if the two are at odds on paper – but when the practicallity hits I (and most of my fellow humans) will behave the opposite way. “Growing the economy” is a nebulous and vague concept, and people struggle to REALLY understand how they contribute/get impacted by “growing the economy”. Plastic packaging over Paper, people’s comfort levels at just dumping their garbage everywhere etc. These are “micro-decisions” people can take on a daily basis, but it is more convenient to take the easiest option.

      TL;DR – people will say one thing, but will change their tune when inconvenienced.

    6. Environmentalister on

      Majority still likes to consume a lot of crap at the expense of externalities on the environment. Unfortunately, liberalism is a plague.

    8. deccan2008 on

      This determination seems to have come from survey data. As usual people say one thing but their actions in form of spending and voting decisions point differently.

    9. DarkSkyKnight on

      > But even without a clear, holistic economic concept as an alternative to the current mainstream perspective on economic growth in mind, public opinion on tradeoffs between economic growth and environmental protection deserves researchers‘ attention. If we want to reduce environmental harm and stay within planetary boundaries (K. Richardson et al., 2023; Rockström et al., 2009), we will have to face such tradeoffs. So what does the broader public say when explicitly asked to weigh the environment against the economy? Do people support environmental protection? Or do they favor economic growth?

      I hate to be mean but this is as ill-informed as the average layman is when it comes to climate economics. It’s by now pretty well-accepted in the literature that the social cost of carbon is rather high and therefore the **economically optimal** policy is much stricter environmental policies or a pretty steep tax on carbon.

      So I have no idea why these guys think there is still this “tradeoff” that exist only in the minds of laymen. The economically optimal policy **IS** to protect the environment.

    10. stonk_monk42069 on

      This article doesn’t provide any information about the study. How did they reach the conclusion? What were the questions they asked the participants? There is really no discussion to be had on the study if it is not linked in the post.

      My personal belief is that protecting the environment and economic growth does not have to be mutually exclusive. Just imagine if the West would have kept investing in nuclear power (among other renewables). We would not have a need for fossil fuels outside of the transport industry at all, and I’m sure we would have driven down costs where it would be competitive to burning fossil fuels even in less developed economies. Instead we are now starting to burn coal, gas and oil again to make up for the lost energy production while our economies are stagnating, instead of exporting nuclear technology all over the world which could have lead to a global economic and environmental renaissance. Just imagine how far the technology would have come if we didn’t let fear and propaganda stop us (probably fueled by the likes of Russia et. al.). Hopefully we will have a chance will SMRs at least.

    12. Capable_Diamond_3878 on

      The idea that the goals conflict at all is also total nonsense. Investment in Green energy is investment in the economy

    Leave A Reply