the dismal science, or why environmental economics is so cool

good social scientists will always tell you that hypotheseses cannot be proved, only supported. but if you're asking a question about complicated statistical relationships, how can we even support something that we can't comprehend?

this questions comes from my calculus IV lesson today, where dr. reid introduced multivariate calculus. as an econ minor, i've encountered partial derivatives and equations with more than one independent variable many times, but i've never studied it in its pure math form. the graph below represents some function z = f(x,y) in 3-D space:


now, this could be an example of, say, the graphical relationship between emissions, z, and GDP per capita and industrial output, x and y. unfortunately, this is very unrealistic, since the assumption that 2 independent variables adequately portray the true nature of industrial emissions is kind of silly.

and therein lies the challenge - understanding the causes of something in a way that isn't humanly understandable, analyzing causal relationships among random variables in dimensions that we can't even imagine.

ah, the joys of problem-solving.

now do you believe me?

like most sensible people, i've been saying for a while that big businesses have too much influence in our government. the economist agrees.

the worst of all are energy companies, who can ignore/rewrite american laws and put people's health in jeopardy, with zero consequences.

gotta fix it, guys.

please stop lying, part 2

it's hard not to be vulgar when you watch a video like this.

michele bachmann is LYING, and she knows it. the EPA does not "kill" jobs, and american energy producers, oil companies and coal miners are some of the least regulated in the world, especially for a developed country.

i talked about this in my last post, but i would be remiss not to mention it again: the porter hypothesis says that intensifying regulations increases innovation, competitiveness and the overall well-being of the economy. regulations - as well as penalties for breaking those regulations - do not hurt an industry; rather, they provide an incentive for that industry to be more efficient. companies that can't cope will fail, but they are replaced by stronger companies that can. for a person who purports to wholeheartedly support free-market capitalism and touts american exceptionalism from every soapbox she manages to slither onto, michele bachmann really doesn't seem to have much faith in our nation's industrial capabilities.

but what about the EPA's other role? do we really not need a federal agency whose sole purpose is to protect our natural environment? what about the people who live near fracking (hydraulic fracturing) sites - people whose tap water is literally flammable (sidenote: PLEASE take a few minutes to watch that link, a trailer for the documentary gasland) because of the chemicals being pumped 1000s of feet underground to extract oil? what about people who live near poorly regulated landfills, like the one in houston, mississippi? in a review of literature conducted by the national institutes of health in 2000, researchers demonstrated a disturbing correlation between a community's proximity to a landfill and the incidence of health problems among residents. some of these afflictions include adult and childhood leukemia; respiratory illnesses; lung, bladder, stomach and rectal cancer; cardiac defects; psychological disorders; low birth weight and birth defects, among others. studies also found a significant correlation between the amount of tap water a pregnant woman drinks and the likelihood she will miscarry.

this research very convincingly illustrates the need for a powerful agency that regulates what people can and can't do to our environment. if you think a company like waste management or exxon mobile or american electric power (aep) is concerned for your health, even in the least, you're an idiot. plain and simple.

at some point you have to ask yourself what you're willing to give up to cling to some backwards, almost archaic concept of "free market" ideals. economically, and in the "free market," it makes sense to allow companies to drill for oil wherever and however they want, even if it means a few thousand more people will die of cancer and a few thousand more babies will be born with birth defects, or not born at all. profits will be higher because of it, and let's face it, those people probably weren't going to buy that much gasoline anyway. sure, it would be great if companies were willing to regulate themselves for the good of mankind, but it's very clear that they don't, and at some point, the government has a moral responsibility to make them.

we HAVE to do something about our politicians who knowingly lie to us for the sake of padding their CEO friends and donors' pocketbooks. a first step in doing that is demanding the truth from people like michele bachmann and many (if not most) of her GOP colleagues. the second step is demanding that they adopt responsible political positions on environmental issues, whether you're a republican or a democrat, and hold them accountable when they don't.

repealing the already too weak EPA won't create jobs, but it will definitely cost us more lives. the health of our communities is clearly at stake, and michele bachmann has proved that she's willing to toss that aside for a chance to spew some hollow "job" rhetoric. shame on her, and shame on everyone who thinks what she's doing is alright.

pardon my french, but this is bullshit.

please stop lying

the GOP has set its sights on environmental regulation, something they think democrats will finally cave on, and some very prominent republican politicians have been propagating some pretty obvious lies about economics and the environment. i'll address some of these in installments over the next few days.

the first is haley barbour, bless his heart, who thinks that "obama's [environmental] policies are hurting our economy, raising energy prices."


that's actually not true. the widely-accepted porter hypothesis suggests that environmental regulations actually encourage innovation, and thus encourage competitiveness, and thus encourage economic well-being and growth. although this theory has its fair share of detractors, when you think about it, it makes perfect sense. a company that's required to cut its sulfur dioxide emissions, for example, must either invest in new technology (which creates jobs in a different industry and diversifies the economy), or it has to develop its own new technology, which not only increases efficiency, but could potentially create a new income source for the industry. sometimes, stringent environmental regulations force companies to look at their production strategy and cut out any unnecessary operations, which also increases efficiency. in the long run, the benefit to society and shrinking of economic externalities (e.g. pollution-related diseases, cleanup costs, etc.) far outweigh the cost of installing a few flue-gas desulphurization caps.

moral of the story, barbour is lying, and he knows it. but the republicans want to cut cut cut, even though they know it's a detriment to society. they have a ridiculous party line that they need to toe, and they couldn't care less if they destroy the world in the process.

i'll address another lie tomorrow.

donate to wikipedia

click here:

summer reading list

inspired by my friend emilie, i've decided to outline my summer reading list.

i'm reading two books right now, les miserables by victor hugo and the picture of dorian gray by oscar wilde. i wanted to read more classics before moving to london, and i think i definitely picked two winners.

next, i'm going to read stieg larsson's the girl who played with fire. i read the first of the series, the girl with the dragon tattoo, and i really enjoyed it.

i'm also going to re-read the art of the commonplace, which is a collection of essays by wendell berry. i had to read this freshman year in an honors seminar, and i thought it was just okay, but i read a few essays from it again last year, and i realized just how powerful berry's writing is. anyone who claims to be interested in environmental protection, policy or economics needs to read this book.


i've ordered one of my textbooks for next year, environmental economics by charles kolstad, so i'll probably thumb through it before i move in september.

i'm going to round out the summer by reading twelfth night, by william shakespeare.

and finally, stealing a page from emilie's book (punny), i'm going to read some william faulkner. i saw his novel mosquitoes yesterday in square books, so i think i'm going off the beaten path and read it in august before conference/vacation in shanghai.


well, i think that's all i'm going to have time for. i bought ulysses a few years ago, but it's a daunting book, so i've been pushing it off. maybe i'll pack it next year, and one weekend in dublin, i'll be inspired to read it.

next chapter

well, guys, i'm graduated.


it's been a great four years, and i hope the next few will be just as good if not better.

over the summer, i'm taking some advanced math classes and tutoring freshmen chinese students at ole miss. then in august, i'm going to shanghai to present my thesis at the shanghai international conference on social science.

in september, i'll move to london to begin the msc program in environmental economics and climate change at the london school of economics.

hopefully i'll do a better job blogging, but until august at least, expect sporadic postings. i couldn't be more excited about the future, and i'm excited to pick up blogging again and share it with whoever's interested. i hope you enjoy the blog's new look, too.

-matthew