Mathematical reasoning is now essential in the making of environmental decisions and policies in that it offers a means by which environmental dynamics can be modeled in order to identify uncertainties and evaluate policy alternatives. Mathematics not only serves to assist institutions in making sound environmental decisions; it defines for such institutions what constitutes an environmental problem and what can be done about it legally. The current essay explores the use of mathematical reasoning in the development of environmental policy. Specifically, it will examine the mathematical methodological basis of dynamical system theory, probability theory, optimization theory, and game theory in order to explore their implementation into regulatory regimes through integrated assessment models, cost-benefit analysis, and threshold regulation. With references to the development of cap-and-trade programs, management of fish stocks by targeting maximum sustainable yield, and carbon valuation through the social cost of carbon, the article shows how mathematical modeling can result in extremely successful policy frameworks when used in combination with institutional coherence and ecological sensibility, but also how false precision, biased assumption and value-laden ethical considerations can be concealed behind formal mathematical modeling. At the same time, the limitations of the conventional approach to the use of mathematical models in environmental policy making are discussed in relation to uncertainties and political tensions, as well as the dangers associated with excessive formalization and optimization, which can lead to indecision or to the depoliticization of value disputes. The key thesis developed in the paper is the need to recognize that mathematical models have power and must be subjected to reflection, criticism and democratic debate because they form the mediating language for making sense of the world and cannot remain apolitical and value-free.
Jitin Yadav (Sun,) studied this question.