Over the course of this semester the process of my research has provided me with many challenges and stressful nights. During this experiance I have learnt a lot about environmental economics and the ongoing global debate on its relevance and application. I have found the topic convoluted in both its economic research and politics.

My main challenges include navigating the plethora of conflicting research, finding relevant statistics and trying to maintain a non-bias approach so that my preferences do not interefere with the outcome, all within a limited time constraint.

In the scope of environmental economics, key indicators can be cherry picked to support certain economic theory over other conflicting theories. This is a direct result of a lack of relevant data and the complex nature of our modern economy. I have struggled to find conclusive support or opposition for the EKC and porter hypothesis as certain industries and regions will react differently to certain environmentally polices.

I have however discovered a lot about how governments implement environmental policy and perceive a greater understanding of the impacts of environmental regulation on the local and global economy.

After reflecting upon my research proposal and the valued outside perspectives offered, I found there are still many considerations to take in the path of finishing my research project.

A consistent comment provided and one that I have personally struggled with, is the scope of my research is too unrealistic. This plays into two important aspects 1) that my research is still largely unrefined, lacking a specific focus. 2) Is it possible to achieve within the time available?

A simple solution to this issue is to choose an element of my project as a focus point. For example I should hone in on the Porter hypothesis or kuznet curve rather than trying to encompassing both, and then apply that to my specified demographics. This will help significantly with time logistics and not to mention incorporating technical/hypothetical analysis. Specifically in terms of relevant yet not overlapping economic indicators of the two theories.

Challenges I see facing other than the ones already discussed is data gathering. This is a result of focusing on least developed nations which typically have poor institutional strength, are strongly affected by corruption and the disrupting factors. Said factors can impact the validity if it is even available, too account for this data volatility I may impose a greater margin of error and verify data through United Nations and other Global organisations.

With the literature review around the corner I have definitely started to feel the pressure for compiling and structuring my research. The more I read the more contested my research becomes with many opposing views or reasons for certain outcomes. Who knew a climate change based topic would be so heated?

Im still looking for my research gap to help provide the focus for my report. This could be a result from a lack of focus in my research as I believe I may be looking too broadly into this topic.

I have found many similar and unique studies into this area of topic which some would think may help but has rather led me down the rabbit hole, with more questions than answers. I see that I have a lot of work over the next few days to provide an appropriate literature review.

“Good environmental policy is good economic policy” Bernie Sanders, Vermont Senator and Presidential candidate.

This sentiment followers the Porter hypothesis published in 1995 advocating strict environmental regulation can act to stimulate the economy rather the hamper it. This contemporary mindset has been gaining much attraction especially as the consequence of inaction has started to plague global leaders, evident in the current G7 summit in France. Due to global circumstance and the current spotlight I have chosen my case study nation to be Brazil. My reasoning follows; Brazil is the definition of a developing nation, now ranking 9th largest economy in the world while simultaneously having 16.2 million citizens living below the poverty line. Brazil is extremely resource rich which provides it with a high capability to pollute, on the other hand an extreme reason to preserve its environment. lastly its environmental actions are now in the international spotlight with Its lax response on the amazon fire a major topic at the G7 summit, coming to a conclusion that will result in technical and financial mechanisms to “help them in the most effective way possible” Emmanuel Macron, French President.

In respect to research I have been lacking in my time management, often getting sidetracked in the huge amount of literature that has come to light. I have narrowed my research question but do not doubt that it needs refinement in its matter of focus “Does Brazils Economic progress reconcile with the Environmental Kuznet Curve Hypothesis or Yield to the Pollution Haven Hypothesis”. In this Im not sure if I should focus on an area, industry or perhaps a specific MNC’s action within Brazil. It is evident however that a political edge must be taken in regards to the effects of current Presidents Mr Bolsonaro’s pro-development policies impact my research.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it’s the only thing that ever has” Margaret Mead.

Reflecting upon these words I came to question what change I perceived as necessary for the world. The bottom line answer I envisioned was global environmental co-operation. This I choose over issues such as: gender wage inequality, economic prosperity or global poverty. For though they are all weighty issues, without an environment for us to live and call home we as a species will not have a chance to solve any of these issues. (Or maybe I have watched to many post apocalyptic movies).

The topic I wish to research revolves around the Environmental Kuznet Hypothesis and the Pollution Haven Hypothesis, now what does that mean? I will use a developing nation as a case study to evaluate whether they are learning from developed nations past mistakes, progressing economically without the degradation to the environment or not to the same degree. Now you may be thinking what mistakes am I talking about, in regards to Australia’s 200 year progression from native aboriginal culture we have managed the extinction of several species such as the Tasmanian devil hunted to extinction to protect the farming industry, the near destruction of Great Barrier reef a whole unique ecosystem and untapped potential scientific resource, combined with potential ruin of our aquifer water system a non renewable source in order to provide gas for energy. All three of these examples required the natural development of millions of years to be what it sadly…. was.

My goal in this research is to essentially vindicate philosopher George Santayana “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” with regards to my case study nation will they access knowledge and technology available to them to perform better in regards to economic progress and the environmental consequences it evidently has.

I believe I am appropriately suited to research this question being a student of economics for 6 years now. I understand the importance of growth and progress and am not blind to reality to state zero pollution is a feasible option. Rather it is that being a citizen of the world with a modicum of worry for its state, I believe that the environment should be valued at a level that represents its importance and scarcity, providing within me as the conductor of this research an equilibrium of both views.

The challenges I face is relevant data collection along with the appropriate methodology to interpret the data in an analytical way to find conclusive findings. My initial wanderings through similar research papers have found evidence to support both previously stated hypothesis within the same nation depending on how its interpreted. leading to an initial suggestion are they mutually exclusive?