What follows from the climate crisis for our economy (and economic experts) and the thinking about it? The E4F debate series so far has not only involved critical examinations of the status quo of economics but has also explored possible paths and appropriate responses to urgent challenges and necessities. Various reference points for a profound structural change are discussed through various articles. The Economists for Future debate series aimed to initiate a discussion about the necessary consequences of the climate crisis for economics, but this has hardly been successful so far. This is mainly because the neoclassical mainstream continues to avoid discourse. A contribution by Franziska M. Hoffart and Michael Roos.

The time is ripe for a reevaluation of the potential of net wealth taxation. But how exactly should wealth and inheritance taxes be designed? Read this contribution by Yannick Schwarz & Ralf Krämer that explores a design for wealth and inheritance taxes for Germany, as key elements of adequate asset taxation. Give it a read, debate, rebut and engage with this submission.

In the debate about a sustainable and livable future, the critique of work is an essential perspective. Work is always on resource and energy consumption, it always has direct or indirect environmental impacts. As André Gorz summed it up, “For modern industrial society, work is both its chief means and its ultimate goal”. From this constellation—the environmentally harmful effects of work on the one hand and the systemic compulsions to work on the other—arises the conflict between work and the environment, which will remain a central sustainability problem as long as it is not directly addressed. Read this contribution by Maja Hoffmann that explores this tension. Give it a read, debate, rebut and engage with this submission.

Often, it is portrayed as if combating climate change 'only' requires a transformation of our existing economic practices. However, the climate crisis is a crisis of the predominant production model and the resources it relies on.

E4F International has signed the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) pledge put forth by the D-Econ (Diversifying and Decolonising Economics). We welcome this initiative to mobilise support among economists and the larger academic community to join the BDS campaign.

The socio-ecological crises of our time make it clear: Sufficiency as a key principle of political action is necessary. However, the profound effects of sufficiency policy on our economy are not yet well understood.

The bioeconomy appears to be an elegant solution to the climate crisis. However, feminist perspectives reveal in which ways the bioeconomy (re)produces oppression and exploitation and suggest ways to make the bioeconomy more inclusive and just.

In this interview, E4F's Briti Kar and Sonal Raghuvanshi talk to Philipp Boethe, the coordinator and one of the co-authors of the 2023 Climate Inequality Report.

In this interview, the E4F team talks to a young academic Michelle Groenewald about her contributions in the ‘Reclaiming Economics for Future Generations’ book, where she also discusses why the democratization agenda within economics academia will remain incomplete till those aspiring for change only focus on individuals abstracted away from the knowledge, research agendas, structure and culture of economics departments, universities and the discipline as a whole.​

Read our conversation with Simon Sharpe, a Senior Fellow at the World Resources Institute, where he talks about his new book ‘Five Times Faster’ and how to rethink the science, economics and diplomacy of climate change.

Fourth in the series on biophysical economics, we talk to Prof. Carey W. King about his research goals centered on rigorous interpretations of the past to determine the most probable future energy pathways and how he attempts to reach these goals by bridging the gaps between economic and biophysical worldviews of economic growth and structural change. The Economists for Future team is thankful to Nikhil F. Ghosh for conceptualizing this series.

This interview is produced as part of a series titled "Economic Perspectives on a Finite Planet". The theme of this series is the field of Biophysical Economics where we ask interviewees to discuss their perspectives on the material and energetic foundations of economic activity, and why their study is essential.

This interview second in the series titled "Economic Perspectives on a Finite Planet". The theme of this series is the field of Biophysical Economics where we ask interviewees to discuss their perspectives on the material and energetic foundations of economic activity, and why their study is essential. The Economist for Future team is thankful to Nikhil F. Ghosh for conceptualising this series.

This interview is produced as part of a series titled "Economic Perspectives on a Finite Planet". The theme of this series is the field of Biophysical Economics, where we ask the interviewees to discuss their perspectives on the material and energetic foundations of economic activity, and why their study is essential. The Economists for Future team thanks Nikhil F Ghosh for conceptualising this series.

Two years ago, our journal assessment showed that economists’ response to the planetary emergency has been incommensurate with the magnitude and urgency of this crisis. Since then, other studies have added evidence to that claim (see Roos & Hoffart, 2021). In this blog piece, we examine one potential reason behind that: the lack of funding for economic research on climate change.