...Bringing science into economics must necessarily entail measurements in the scientific units above (plus the utilization of taxonomic schemes for biota). Thus if we assess by scientific studies and measurements that we are causing the 6th mass extinction and forcing dangerous climate change by releasing CO2 from our fossil fuels, then we have assessed that we should stop using fossil fuels. How we stop is the next matter for consideration and then we must examine energy transitions, energy saving and consumption curtailment, all in scientific and technological feasibility terms. Only real resource considerations are meaningful. Money considerations are completely meaningless. This is if we are being entirely logical and scientific.
MMT begins with availability of real resources.
I have been arguing that the challenge presented by climate change is not so much economic issue as a matter of science and engineering. First the design problem has to be delineated based on scientific research involving measurement that conform to best practice in science. Then, a design solution, or alternatives with tradeoffs, must be proposed in engineering terms. Some of those tradeoffs may involve nominal cost, but in design problems that are regarded as existential challenges, like war, nominal cost is mostly irrelevant to purpose.
Bringing science into economics must necessarily entail measurements in the scientific units.
Ikonoclast
