Environment Institute, University of Adelaide, there are an array of outstanding scientists. The evidence produced by this work is transformational. However, at the same time we simply - individually and collectively - do not act in our own self interest or on evidence. That is don't act on this evidence at anything like the rate that would make rational sense.
There are many obvious environment examples from climate change to species survival but, money is often cited as the answer for why such action does not occur. This is something of a paradox as we will also ignore risk free financial returns that is actions we can take that will make us a profit. These are often profits that also create positive environmental outcomes.
This paradox challenges the idea of humans acting "rationally", to maximise profit. New economics writer Eric Beinhocker recently summarised this succinctly. He "does not accept the orthodox theory that has dominated economics for the past several decades that humans are perfectly rational, markets are perfectly efficient, institutions are optimally designed and economies are self-correcting equilibrium systems that invariably find a state that maximises social welfare. Social scientists working in the new economics tradition argue that this theory has failed empirically on many points and that the 2008 financial crisis is only the latest and most obvious example."
If you accept that humans often don't act in a rational financial manner it's then a small step to also challenge the idea that we're not acting on environmental evidence simply because of the cost. And to start looking for a decent map of what creates effective action from evidence.
Effective action from evidence, and the lack of it, is the focus of the next few blog posts.
Image: Earth from above by Yann Arthus-Bertrand