How does Freakonomics relate to environmental science and social behaviors in government?

Here are two examples of environmental science issues relating to government and energy as "currency" from the Freakonomics article collection. The first is "How Shale Gas Can Benefit the Environment" (11/14/2011) and the second is "The Inefficiency of Local Food" (09/28/2012); both articles are written by Steve Sexton. 

In the argument regarding shale gas, Sexton compares the boon to our economy to sales of the latest iPhone release. While the latter is heralded for being more advanced than its predecessors, the new technology that enables the extraction and production of shale gas is not only not met with the same kind of enthusiasm and accolades, shale production is frequently vociferously castigated.  

This puzzles Sexton. Shale, he argues, is cleaner than any current means of energy production, "30-50% cleaner than coal." As if this weren't enough, shale extraction and production, Sexton claims, is "cheaper than coal. And cheaper than wind. And cheaper than solar. Even if shale production were to assume the cost of the risks associated with it, "the IEA predicts that mitigating such risks and safely exploiting shale gas would only raise production costs about 7%. Even then, shale gas is still 17% cheaper than the cheapest renewable fuel," Sexton argues. The government, therefore, should be pursuing this resource. 

The second article makes a case against the push for "locavore farming," that is, eschewing large scale farms who export their fruits, vegetables, and grains across the country in favor of small, local farms. The government, Sexton points out, has already created the "Local Farms, Foods, and Jobs Act," which includes a "federal rule" that gives preference to local farms in contract bidding for school lunches." While perhaps well-meaning, Sexton says, these actions are not only misguided but detrimental. 

First, it should be understood that the need for food in the very near future is tremendous. "In the next 50 years," he writes, "the global food system likely need to produced as much food as it did in the previous 10,000 years combined." Small farms simply cannot produce enough food. These farms are not streamlined, and therefore, efficient, as modern farming. Moreover, small farms cannot grow crops that are not indigenous to their region. California's climate is suited to fields of strawberries, grapes, and almonds while Idaho produces "30 percent of the country's russet potatoes." In order to come close to the kind of native production, small farms in non-indigenous regions would need to increase the use of fertilizer "by 30 percent for corn and 54% for soybeans...fuel use would increase 23 percent and 54 percent for corn and soybeans respectively. Chemical demands would grow... [as would] carbon emissions from transportation." 

How do the concepts in Levitt and Dubner's Freakonomics relate to environmental science issues, including social behaviors, governance, political corruption, and energy currency?

In order to complete your assignment, one thing you must first understand is exactly how the Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner's book Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything can be related to environmental science. Environmental science is an interesting study in that it can actually be quite diverse. In its essence, environmental science is the study of the ways in which "living and non-living components" interact with each other in one environment ("What is Environmental Science?"). Environmental science also specifically wants to see how mankind influences both the "living and non-living components" within an environment. Since environmental science studies interactions, its research actually depends on a diverse number of fields of study, including biology, ecology, geology, chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and bio-medics, among others ("What is Environmental Science?"). The ways in which mankind impacts its environment also has sociopolitical consequences; therefore, the fields of economics, sociology, and political science are also essential for conducting research in environmental science, which brings us to how the book Freakonomics can be seen as relevant to the field of environmental science ("What is Environmental Science?"). In their book, authors Levitt and Dubner apply economic theories to examine social issues to show that such issues actually have things in common. Hence, those studying environmental science could easily pick any social issue discussed in the book to show how human interaction with the environment within that issue has influenced the environment.

Another concept in your question you must understand to be able to complete your assignment is "energy currency." Energy currency is a new economical concept in which we eliminate fiat currency, meaning currency not backed by anything other than the government's word, and back currency with something that is abundant, like a unit of energy called a calorie or an erg ("The Evolutionary Advantages of an ... Energy-Backed Currency"). Since energy "cannot be created or destroyed" but only "transformed and transferred," energy can be a practical measure with which to back currency ("The Evolutionary Advantages"). What's more, energy is valuable, and the more valuable we consider energy to be, the more humanity feels inclined to create new technology that will generate more energy through greener, less expensive means. The less energy costs and the more we have of it, the richer humanity becomes ("The Evolutionary Advantages"). As "energy becomes more abundant, countries could print more money without diluting its value" ("The Evolutionary Advantages"). Hence, the concept of energy currency is as much a sociopolitical issue as it is an environmental issue, making it also a very fitting concern for environmental science.

The book Freakonomics of course covers many social issues, and each of those issues can be interpreted as having environmental influence. Since social issues also tie in with the economy, social issues can also be connected with the concept of energy currency. One social issue we may look at is the fact that, in Chapter 4: Where Have all the Criminals Gone?, Levitt and Dubner connect the decline in crime rates with the legalization of abortion. The authors point out that the 1980s was a time period of extreme crime rates, especially due to drug trafficking of "cheap" drugs like crack cocaine. However, crime rates decreased in the 1990s. The authors further indicate that criminologists and public officials associated the decrease in crime rates with increases in police forces, new policing strategies, gun-control laws, and several other factors. However, Levitt and Dubner argue that, while the increased numbers of police certainly seemed to have helped reduce the crime rates, it should be noted that crime rates fell even in places where no changes to police forces and procedures could be made (eNotes, "Freakonomics: Summary"). So, what can account for the decrease in crime rates? Levitt and Dubner assert their provocative claim that the legalization of abortion is the main contributing factor. The authors point out that after the decision of Roe vs. Wade was enacted in 1973, "about 750,000 women" had abortions in the U.S. and the number increased to 1.6 million in 1980. Levitt and Dubner further point out that the children born around the same time that the Roe vs. Wade decision was made were growing into their teen years by the 1990s. The teen years are the years in which young men begin to tend towards their lives of crime. But the 1990s were also the same period in which crime rates dropped. The authors conclude that "legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime" (p. 140). As we can see, the legalization of abortion, the Supreme Court case Roe vs. Wade, and crime rates are all sociopolitical issues. What's more, if legalization of abortion leads to reduced crime rates and the unavailability of legal abortions leads to higher crime rates, then we can also see how mankind's interaction with both each other in terms of sexuality and with non-living entities, such as laws, can directly influence our environment, making this sociopolitical issue a perfect topic to study under environmental science. More specifically, mankind's creation of a non-living law to legalize abortion directly impacted the environment by reducing crime rates, while the non-living procedure of preventing abortions impacted the environment by leading to increased crime rates.

How does the reduction of crime rates through legalized abortion relate to energy currency? Increased crime rates of course leads to economic instability because more money must be spent to control, capture, and imprison criminals. Spending more money on the above leads to a drain on resources. It can also be said that draining resources also leads to a drain on energy. Therefore, when crime rates are higher, less energy is available to back currency, and the opposite is true when crime rates are reduced.