Discover 17 opportunities in environmental economics

At the undergraduate level, environmental economics is typically taught as an applied microeconomics course. However, while topics like externalities and common property resources are great for emphasizing efficiency, they don’t always prepare students to consider environmental concerns as part of the broader economy. Incorporating macroeconomics into these courses can help students understand problems that deal with both scale and efficiency, such as how to reconcile economic growth with environmental quality.

If you're planning to study economics at a Master's level, then you may have the opportunity to pursue a concentration, sometimes also referred to as a major. While rarer, some PhD programs may also offer concentrations, though many are already specialized degrees (or require you to have your own research agenda).

In this article, INOMICS interviews Dr. Richard S.J. Tol, member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) when it was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize and a researcher at the forefront of economics and climate policy. Dubbed Fratzscher vs. Tol as Prof. Dr. Marcel Fratzscher resumed his role as interviewer, the conversation touches on gender discrimination in economics, the increasing availability of historical data, and how climate policy can clash with economic research.

For as long as we can remember, Mother Nature has been serving mankind as our major root source of livelihood. From the land that provides the nutrients for our crops, to the stone for our roads and buildings, to the oil for transport in our globalized world, we rely on these natural resources to maintain our modern way of life.

In our current state of isolation, it’s important not to forget about some of the other issues which still beset the human race, not least climate change. Due to the fact that so fewer people are travelling both around the world and domestically each day, the levels of greenhouse gases being emitted are far lower than they have been in recent years.

The continued existence of fossil fuel subsidies in a time of their almost universal condemnation reveals something about the governments that rule us, something pernicious, but also something all-too-predictable. Like no other area, they expose a gulf between rhetoric and action, a disconnect so stark that, if the risks it posed were less catastrophic, would almost be comical. Back in reality, though, the cognitive dissonance, cynicism, or whatever its cause, serves only to warm our planet and threaten all life. 

In 2018, United States President Donald Trump said his administration was putting more coal miners back into work, having previously rattled on about how important coal jobs were to the future of the US. Perhaps it should be no surprise that his words were empty. The Trump administration has added a negligible  2,000 coal mining jobs since it took control, and whatever bump in coal production 2018 saw was quick to fade away. Obviously, Trump’s pledge to keep the industry alive was a political stunt, not a decision based on the economic realities of the moment; for if it had been, Trump wouldn’t have been talking about coal, but about renewable energy.