A better title for this book would be "Environmental Economics for Skeptics about Tree-Huggers". Its viewpoint hews very faithfully to the Econ 101 textbook version of neoclassical microeconomics. The author (WKJ) occasionally mentions other points of view in order to seem fair, but these are reassuringly dismissed.



For example, consider WKJ's discussion of the so-called "environmental Kuznets curve". The EKC is an alleged empirical relationship between economic development and declines in pollution; its biggest fans are neoliberal economists who claim that the solution to environmental problems is more, not less, economic activity. WKJ does mention that "the dust has definitely not settled on this debate [sc., about the reality of the EKC]," but goes on to say "[but] some important ideas have emerged" (@100). With that phrase, WKJ flips the discussion to make the EKC appear much less controversial than it actually is. The problem with the EKC is as time goes by, empirical evidence seems very much against it, especially for non-localized issues like global warming. No worries: WKJ tells us that "the absence of evidence of an EKC for some environmental indicators should not be construed as proof that the EKC notion is invalid." He spends the next 3-1/2 pages discussing why the EKC is "good news" (@104). For more nuanced evaluations of the EKC even within the framework of conventional econometrics (i.e., NOT by tree-huggers), see, e.g., D. Stern's 2004 paper, "The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve" and the 2006 paper by Galeotti & al., "On the Robustness of Robustness Checks of the Environmental Kuznets Curve," both of which you can find for free online.



The insincere appearance of fairness isn't the only rhetorical tactic used by WKJ to deal with difficult topics. Ignoring the difficulties is another, as when after a very confusing description of the construction of a staircase-shaped demand curve for cookies in a hypothetical classroom (@18-23) WKJ casually mentions that in the rest of the book demand curves will be continuous curves. In fact the aggregation of demand curves is a highly controversial topic even within neoclassical economics. Even Nobel laureate Gerard Debreu, who helped to put the neoclassical point of view on a highly mathematical foundation, himself questioned its validity.



Another tactic, thankfully confined to the final chapter, is a more judgmental and emotional dismissal of opposing ideas. For example, we're told that the version of environmental economics known as ecological economics is "high-quality" as practiced in Europe, but not so in the US; US ecological economics is "either noneconomic or antieconomic" (terms that are never explained) (@265). Herman Daly, the leading American proponent of ecological economics, who BTW has been much honored in Europe, is a "self-described ecological economist" whose characterizations of economics are "misleading" (@267), though we are never told how they are so, nor even about Daly's characterizations at all. In this concluding chapter, WKJ also perpetuates the fiction that economics is neutral ("The fact [is] that economics does not take sides," @271) and should be reserved to use by experts ("**When used as directed,** economics attempts to add up people's preferences as reflected in their actions," @270 [emphasis added]). Interestingly, WKJ is conflicted on the question of neutrality; earlier, he tells us "Economic analysis is not 'value free.' That is, it is not neutral or independent with respect to moral or ethical considerations" (@247). I think this last quote is correct; it's too bad WKJ couldn't see the implications of this statement for the rest of the book.



All in all, this is a highly conventional treatment of a subject that deserves much more nuance, and in-depth discussion of controversies. A much more enlightened and enlightening book, despite its age, is Pearce & Turner's "Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment" (Johns Hopkins 1990; not to be confused with the 1993 "Environmental Economics: An Elementary Introduction" by Turner, Pearce & Bateman, which is another conventional treatment).