It's not too early to start thinking about the next UN Conference on Sustainable Development. It will be next June 4-6 in Rio DeJaneiro. One of the objectives this time is the Green Economy. I have to admit I'm a little confused, though, because shouldn't this be a theme every year?
At any rate, the UN Environment Programme is putting out a Green Economy Report this year that is pretty comprehensive.
It has plans for Agriculture, Water, Fisheries, Forests, Renewable Energy, Manufacturing, Waste, Buildings, Transport, Tourism, Cities, Modelling, Enabling Conditions, and Finance.
I think I'm personally most interested in Renewable Energy, Manufacturing, and Finance.
Showing posts with label lecture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lecture. Show all posts
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
Berkeley Energy Conference
The Berkeley 2011 Energy Symposium is coming up in October. Pretty exciting!
Sunday, July 17, 2011
After Darwinism
Lynn recently introduced me to the ideas of Dr. Elisabet Sahtouris. She is a biologist who presents a framework for science that motivates the transition to environmental sustainability. The most interesting part of her talk was that Darwinism only describes the adolescent stage of human society development. After that, there must be cooperation to create a sustainable ecosystem.
I think she mischaracterizes entropy, though. Entropy is orthogonal to destruction vs organization. It is simply going from a higher energy state to a lower energy state. If you build something, like a house, you are adding organization, but you are putting a lot of energy in, so the entropy of the whole system is still increased, although the entropy of the house itself is decreased. The sun decreases entropy on the earth, but in the scope of the universe, entropy is still increased. It seems like people who talk about sustainability and ecology really like talking about entropy. I don't really get it.
I think she mischaracterizes entropy, though. Entropy is orthogonal to destruction vs organization. It is simply going from a higher energy state to a lower energy state. If you build something, like a house, you are adding organization, but you are putting a lot of energy in, so the entropy of the whole system is still increased, although the entropy of the house itself is decreased. The sun decreases entropy on the earth, but in the scope of the universe, entropy is still increased. It seems like people who talk about sustainability and ecology really like talking about entropy. I don't really get it.
Monday, May 30, 2011
MIT Macro Panel: Conservatism in the Field
Robert Solow is one of the legends of the field, and he spoke at the Macroeconomics Panel at the MIT 150 Economics Symposium I posted about last week. He talked about the Keynesian foundations that were dominant in 1950-1970. Their development was originally based on observing empirical events. Then, in the 1970's with the oil shocks, macro lost a lot of credibility, and conservative ideology gained a strong foothold in the field. Also, there was a stronger motivation to move away from event-driven analysis and towards theoretical (mathematical) neatness.
It seems that conservatism and theoretical neatness still dominates the field today, although I wonder if the time is ripe for another shift. Even if it is, in practice, it seems that macroeconomists really only have two tools at their disposal, which is setting the interest rate and recommend fiscal policy. Even then, the only one economists have direct control over is setting the interest rate.
It is possible there are other tools that can be developed. There was a discussion on the panel about future research in macroeconomics. Better understanding the components of total factor productivity was one of them. There are two approaches which are to endogenize human capital or technological development (or both). Understanding how to model technological growth would be important for developing responsible environmental economies. However, there are also more direct ways to do that, such as researching the effectiveness of policies that promote environmental technological development.
It seems that conservatism and theoretical neatness still dominates the field today, although I wonder if the time is ripe for another shift. Even if it is, in practice, it seems that macroeconomists really only have two tools at their disposal, which is setting the interest rate and recommend fiscal policy. Even then, the only one economists have direct control over is setting the interest rate.
It is possible there are other tools that can be developed. There was a discussion on the panel about future research in macroeconomics. Better understanding the components of total factor productivity was one of them. There are two approaches which are to endogenize human capital or technological development (or both). Understanding how to model technological growth would be important for developing responsible environmental economies. However, there are also more direct ways to do that, such as researching the effectiveness of policies that promote environmental technological development.
Financial Innovation
Now I'm watching the Financial Innovation panel from the MIT 150 Economics symposium.
Friday, May 27, 2011
MIT Macroeconomics Symposium
I'm watching this video from the MIT 150 Economics Symposium back in January about the development of macroeconomics. It helps to watch it several times as I learn more about macroeconomics from reading and talking to friends who are economists. I get a little bit more out of it each time. I'm looking for guidance and inspiration for possible research topics or other projects.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Energy futures week
Next week is Energy Futures Week at MIT, and the focus is on energy efficiency this year. I will be trying to go to as many events as possible to learn, network, and get a job.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Bill Gates Working on His Wings
Bill Gates recently came to MIT to encourage students "to focus their talent and energy on tackling the world's biggest challenges, including global health, poverty and education."
Whoo! It is exciting to hear him talk about this.
Gates also wrote an op-ed piece with Chad Holliday, the CEO emeritus of DuPont, about the need for major investment in clean energy technology. They give persuasive explanations for why the private sector cannot do this alone.
Gates was eager to learn during his visit, opening his presentation with a two-part question. "Are the brightest minds working on the most important problems?" he asked a packed Kresge Auditorium. "And to the degree that they're not, how could we increase that, which I think could make a huge difference?"
Those questions were inspired by a weekend Gates recently spent with several friends who were eager to talk about two topics they found exciting: the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament and financial markets. That got Gates thinking about how he could shift some of the focus of the brightest minds from these popular topics toward solving problems that plague poor countries, such as health, food, sanitation and governance, as well as more global issues like education and energy. Even in areas of scientific innovation, a lot of the focus remains geared toward the perceived needs of the rich, such as baldness drugs, Gates said.
Whoo! It is exciting to hear him talk about this.
Gates also wrote an op-ed piece with Chad Holliday, the CEO emeritus of DuPont, about the need for major investment in clean energy technology. They give persuasive explanations for why the private sector cannot do this alone.
But our country is neglecting a field central to our national prospect and security: energy. Although the information technology and pharmaceutical industries spend 5 to 15 percent of their revenue on research and development each year, U.S. companies' spending on energy R&D has averaged only about one-quarter of 1 percent of revenue over the past 15 years.
And despite talk about the need for "21st-century" energy sources, federal spending on clean energy research -- less than $3 billion -- is also relatively small. Compare that with roughly $30 billion that the U.S. government annually spends on health research and $80 billion on defense research and development.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Scientists Want to Communicate with Normal People
I went to a panel discussion at MIT today about communicating about Climate Change, Talking Science in the Age of Sound Bites. It was really really good. The most exciting thing they were talking about was that scientists need to build trust with deniers by acknowledging that values shape how science is interpreted and used.
Beth Daley-
Environmental reporter for the Boston Globe since 1994.
What she said: She talked about the change in print media and how the sciences sections have been downgraded over the years. Also, media has become more polarized politically so more political editorial is considered "news." She noted that there is no common basis for information anymore. There are fewer writers and she has to put out a lot more content rather than be able to work on in depth articles. She used to only write a few articles every year, but now she has to write several stories a day, blog, tweet, and even video-blog. This results in having articles that basically just paraphrase press releases. She talked about the need for science articles to talk more about human narratives to engage people rather than bland statistics.
John Sterman-
Jay W. Forrester Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management and Director of MIT's System Dynamics Group.
What he said: He talked about how scientists need to sound less depressing by talking about the dream rather than talking about the nightmare. He also made some really interesting points about how scientists and environmentalists need to get away from the "deficiency paradigm," which is the view that global warming deniers just lack "the facts." Instead, there should be more focus on establishing trust and learning to communicate about values and how they influence the interpretation of "the facts." There will need to be scientists who are more trained in communicating with the public. Working on solutions to global warming is not going to be like the Manhattan project, which is what many scientists and engineers envision. It will require the public to be involved in implementation and supportive of policy.
Randy Olson-
Marine biologist turned filmmaker--"Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus" and "Sizzle: A Global Warming Comedy."
What he said: Scientists are boring. We need more personalities and someone that the public trusts and would go to for advice such as Richard Feynman. However, other scientists criticized Feynman for hamming it up. He is a movie maker and has seen many attempts for scientists and Hollywood directors to collaborate, but they do not know how to speak to each other even when in the same room together. Scientists and environmentalists need to learn how to manage their public relations. They have evolved to be apolitical as people who work on discovering "the truth." However, it is a reality that scientists have ethics and values since they are not impartial machines, so there is no way to be apolitical. Scientists need to acknowledge that there is controversy about climate change instead of dismissing the deniers by simply saying there is consensus amongst the scientific community. He talked about how scientists were really unprepared during "climate gate" as well as the evolution debate and that it's an organizational problem. Someone, perhaps the National Academy of Science, needs to step it up.
Judith Layzer-
Associate Professor of Environmental Policy in the MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning.
What she said: She paints a starker political picture, saying that most of the political change has been due to advocacy groups. Policymaking is not a linear process. She also suggested that much of the weak response of scientists during "climate gate" is because of temperamental differences. She does not think the National Academy of Science would step into the role of spokesperson for scientists. She points out, though, that conservatives are also depressing doomsday sayers. Sterman responded by saying that the difference is that conservatives are resisting change, saying that there is nothing wrong with our way of life while environmentalists are trying to confront people about their way of life.
Gino Del Guercio-
Executive Producer at Boston Science Communications, Inc. and adjunct professor at the Boston University Center for Science and Medical Journalism.
What he said: He talked about being a producer on the Discovery Channel from the beginning. At first, they made good science shows, but as ratings went up, the ratings became more and more important so that there became a schism amongst the crew where some wanted to keep making science shows and others only cared about the ratings. He said that the title is often more important than the content. One thing people can do is to contribute to public television.
John Hagan-
President of the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences.
What he said: Science needs to be embedded in social fabric.
Beth Daley-
Environmental reporter for the Boston Globe since 1994.
What she said: She talked about the change in print media and how the sciences sections have been downgraded over the years. Also, media has become more polarized politically so more political editorial is considered "news." She noted that there is no common basis for information anymore. There are fewer writers and she has to put out a lot more content rather than be able to work on in depth articles. She used to only write a few articles every year, but now she has to write several stories a day, blog, tweet, and even video-blog. This results in having articles that basically just paraphrase press releases. She talked about the need for science articles to talk more about human narratives to engage people rather than bland statistics.
John Sterman-
Jay W. Forrester Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management and Director of MIT's System Dynamics Group.
What he said: He talked about how scientists need to sound less depressing by talking about the dream rather than talking about the nightmare. He also made some really interesting points about how scientists and environmentalists need to get away from the "deficiency paradigm," which is the view that global warming deniers just lack "the facts." Instead, there should be more focus on establishing trust and learning to communicate about values and how they influence the interpretation of "the facts." There will need to be scientists who are more trained in communicating with the public. Working on solutions to global warming is not going to be like the Manhattan project, which is what many scientists and engineers envision. It will require the public to be involved in implementation and supportive of policy.
Randy Olson-
Marine biologist turned filmmaker--"Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus" and "Sizzle: A Global Warming Comedy."
What he said: Scientists are boring. We need more personalities and someone that the public trusts and would go to for advice such as Richard Feynman. However, other scientists criticized Feynman for hamming it up. He is a movie maker and has seen many attempts for scientists and Hollywood directors to collaborate, but they do not know how to speak to each other even when in the same room together. Scientists and environmentalists need to learn how to manage their public relations. They have evolved to be apolitical as people who work on discovering "the truth." However, it is a reality that scientists have ethics and values since they are not impartial machines, so there is no way to be apolitical. Scientists need to acknowledge that there is controversy about climate change instead of dismissing the deniers by simply saying there is consensus amongst the scientific community. He talked about how scientists were really unprepared during "climate gate" as well as the evolution debate and that it's an organizational problem. Someone, perhaps the National Academy of Science, needs to step it up.
Judith Layzer-
Associate Professor of Environmental Policy in the MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning.
What she said: She paints a starker political picture, saying that most of the political change has been due to advocacy groups. Policymaking is not a linear process. She also suggested that much of the weak response of scientists during "climate gate" is because of temperamental differences. She does not think the National Academy of Science would step into the role of spokesperson for scientists. She points out, though, that conservatives are also depressing doomsday sayers. Sterman responded by saying that the difference is that conservatives are resisting change, saying that there is nothing wrong with our way of life while environmentalists are trying to confront people about their way of life.
Gino Del Guercio-
Executive Producer at Boston Science Communications, Inc. and adjunct professor at the Boston University Center for Science and Medical Journalism.
What he said: He talked about being a producer on the Discovery Channel from the beginning. At first, they made good science shows, but as ratings went up, the ratings became more and more important so that there became a schism amongst the crew where some wanted to keep making science shows and others only cared about the ratings. He said that the title is often more important than the content. One thing people can do is to contribute to public television.
John Hagan-
President of the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences.
What he said: Science needs to be embedded in social fabric.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Climate Policy and Economics Talk
John Sterman is giving a talk at MIT about climate change and economic implications.
BES International Policy and Economics: What is the Road from Copenhagen?
It's a MIT Club of Boston event.
BES International Policy and Economics: What is the Road from Copenhagen?
It's a MIT Club of Boston event.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Talk on NCSE Conference at MIT
Last night, I gave a talk at MIT, debriefing the conference on the New Green Economy. It was a lot of fun! 12 people showed up. One of them recommended reading about Elinor Ostrom and watching her Nobel Prize in Economics Lecture. I'd like to get better at speaking. Besides being useful for spreading and sharing ideas, it's also generally useful for networking, management jobs, and collaborating with others on projects.
Another interesting note is that the only two women who were there were my friends. That was somewhat surprising.
Another interesting note is that the only two women who were there were my friends. That was somewhat surprising.
Monday, February 22, 2010
NCSE Debriefing at MIT
I'm going to do a little talk at MIT about the NCSE Conference. It'll be in 4-146, Monday, March 1, 7pm.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Copenhagen Analysis by MIT panel
MIT recently had an event assessing the outcome of the Cop15 Climate Conference. It was a pretty positive spin on things. It sounded like a very interesting talk, and I will post the video when it becomes available. Panelists include Ernest Moniz, MIT Energy Initiative Director, Robert Stavins, professor of business and government at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Michael Greenstone, MIT Environmental Economist who was chief economist on the President's Council of Economic Advisors for the past year, Steven Ansolabehere, professor of political science at MIT and Harvard, Edward Steinfeld, director of the MIT-China program and associate professor of political science, and Henry Jacoby, co-director of MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change and professor of management at MIT Sloan.
We had Michael Greenstone speak at the Big Picture Panel event, and Ed Steinfeld was my China policy professor.
We had Michael Greenstone speak at the Big Picture Panel event, and Ed Steinfeld was my China policy professor.
Friday, January 29, 2010
NCSE Conference : Friday : Afternoon
Second Symposium : Rethinking City Economics: How Green Infrastructure and Deconstruction can provide green jobs, revitalize communities, and encourage local self-reliance.
Organized by Samuel Sage, President of the Atlantic States Legal Foundation. Panelists included Neil Seldman, President of the Institute for Local Self-reliance, Jean Kessner, Counselor at large, Onondaga County, NY, and Alexander Shisler, Green Infrastructure Coordinator at the Atlantic States Legal Foundation. This talk was more about urban planning and the panelists and audience seemed much more academic and activist. There were a number of educators and journalists. However, the panel was kind of hard on academics and actual urban planners.
Seldman gave a presentation first about "deconstruction," which is "the highest form of recycling" where the dismantling of building is planned and materials are reused. This is good for job creation, and it also empowers the workers because they gain skills that allow them to sell things in their own neighborhoods legally. Many can start their own small businesses. Since this work is always local and needed in every community, it's conducive to small businesses.
Neighborhood Stabilization Money is money from the Federal government to various cities to remove broken or empty houses that are dragging down the value of a neighborhood. It is money for dismantling excess houses. Instead of just demolishing the houses, the government should have a demolition contract stating that materials should be recycled, making more money than putting the rubble in landfills. Sometimes Health and Human Services has resources for deconstruction and training people to do deconstruction. The panelists also mention strip-outs. This is sometimes done by hotels and businesses who want to change the interior decorating of a building. Those materials can be deconstructed as well.
Building Materials Reuse Association, Second Chance in Baltimore
"Growing Power" - a book on building green houses.
Next, Shisler gave a presentation about green infrastructure. He is a civil engineer who works for the Atlantic States Foundation. Examples of green infrastructure for storm-water management include cisterns, green roofs, urban forestry, bio-retention, and permeable paving. This is an alternative to conventional sewage systems that need to have a pretty big waste-water management plant so that the water runoff doesn't pollute the groundwater and streams. If there is permeable paving or these grass gutters instead, the water gets filtered in the gravel or grass. It seems like you would have smelly grass, though. At any rate, benefits include, pollution reduction, habitat creation, energy saving, community spaces, water conservation, cost/benefit ratio, job creation, and crime reduction.
Jean Kessner gave a presentation on municipal level activities. She was first a journalist and then a city counselor. She advocated for green infrastructure like porous pavement in her town, but budgets for different agencies cause different priorities for the whole system. Some places that pay for storm water disposal and would need state legislation.
They mentioned Youngstown, Ohio, though, as a place that has done good zoning and management. Also Tree People in LA have done good things. Someone in the audience was working with or working for UNESCO, a clearinghouse for solutions and things that work and don't work. Rust belt cities in PA have changed taxes on land vs taxes on buildings. Someone in the audience worked for Just Economics that looked at these tax code issues. EmPower DC is trying to prevent selling of public land to developers. Sometimes building codes don't allow for using deconstructed materials.
Closing Discussion : Progress of the Obama Administration in Moving Toward a Green Economy
Moderated by David Golston of the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), and with panelists Davon Silvers, AFL-CIO, Jessy Tolkan, Energy Action Coalition and Green For All, Gary Hirschberg, Stonyfield Farm CEO, and Cecelia Rouse, Council of Economic Advisors.
The market alone won't bring about a clean economy. We need the right supply chains for a low carbon economy. (? not sure what they were really saying).
They talked about how people don't think the Obama administration has made much progress.
They talked about structural problems for commercial building retrofitting.
- people under water
- unregulated derivatives markets and volatility in energy markets
A financial reform package would really help.
One problem is that there are no large scale program for commercial rehab to spark private investment.
Private industry is very responsive, though, to government incentives.
Hirschberg talked about how he really liked the $13.5 billion allocated for broadband for rural areas. It's important to have communications infrastructure for the agriculture industry. He also said how there is rampant farm decline right now.
Tolkan mentioned something that community volunteers were doing DC, going door to door signing people up for retrofitting. They would also work with local unions and contractors so that the extra business would bring more jobs. This was a way to create demand for green jobs.
This talk sometimes turned into more of a rally, especially since Tolkan is an organizer. They talked about how it's important that a popular movement is created instead of the Tea Party movement. Everyone needs to get involved on the grass roots level and to educate our peers on these issues to empower the leaders to lead. They were being aggressive and insistent to counter the feeling of despair after the Supreme Court ruling.
The Steady State Economy people asked Rouse what she thought about zero-net growth, and she really had no idea what they were talking about. That was kind of interesting since she is an economist, and she had never heard of an alternative to this cycle of growth that our economy is based on.
Organized by Samuel Sage, President of the Atlantic States Legal Foundation. Panelists included Neil Seldman, President of the Institute for Local Self-reliance, Jean Kessner, Counselor at large, Onondaga County, NY, and Alexander Shisler, Green Infrastructure Coordinator at the Atlantic States Legal Foundation. This talk was more about urban planning and the panelists and audience seemed much more academic and activist. There were a number of educators and journalists. However, the panel was kind of hard on academics and actual urban planners.
Seldman gave a presentation first about "deconstruction," which is "the highest form of recycling" where the dismantling of building is planned and materials are reused. This is good for job creation, and it also empowers the workers because they gain skills that allow them to sell things in their own neighborhoods legally. Many can start their own small businesses. Since this work is always local and needed in every community, it's conducive to small businesses.
Neighborhood Stabilization Money is money from the Federal government to various cities to remove broken or empty houses that are dragging down the value of a neighborhood. It is money for dismantling excess houses. Instead of just demolishing the houses, the government should have a demolition contract stating that materials should be recycled, making more money than putting the rubble in landfills. Sometimes Health and Human Services has resources for deconstruction and training people to do deconstruction. The panelists also mention strip-outs. This is sometimes done by hotels and businesses who want to change the interior decorating of a building. Those materials can be deconstructed as well.
Building Materials Reuse Association, Second Chance in Baltimore
"Growing Power" - a book on building green houses.
Next, Shisler gave a presentation about green infrastructure. He is a civil engineer who works for the Atlantic States Foundation. Examples of green infrastructure for storm-water management include cisterns, green roofs, urban forestry, bio-retention, and permeable paving. This is an alternative to conventional sewage systems that need to have a pretty big waste-water management plant so that the water runoff doesn't pollute the groundwater and streams. If there is permeable paving or these grass gutters instead, the water gets filtered in the gravel or grass. It seems like you would have smelly grass, though. At any rate, benefits include, pollution reduction, habitat creation, energy saving, community spaces, water conservation, cost/benefit ratio, job creation, and crime reduction.
Jean Kessner gave a presentation on municipal level activities. She was first a journalist and then a city counselor. She advocated for green infrastructure like porous pavement in her town, but budgets for different agencies cause different priorities for the whole system. Some places that pay for storm water disposal and would need state legislation.
They mentioned Youngstown, Ohio, though, as a place that has done good zoning and management. Also Tree People in LA have done good things. Someone in the audience was working with or working for UNESCO, a clearinghouse for solutions and things that work and don't work. Rust belt cities in PA have changed taxes on land vs taxes on buildings. Someone in the audience worked for Just Economics that looked at these tax code issues. EmPower DC is trying to prevent selling of public land to developers. Sometimes building codes don't allow for using deconstructed materials.
Closing Discussion : Progress of the Obama Administration in Moving Toward a Green Economy
Moderated by David Golston of the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), and with panelists Davon Silvers, AFL-CIO, Jessy Tolkan, Energy Action Coalition and Green For All, Gary Hirschberg, Stonyfield Farm CEO, and Cecelia Rouse, Council of Economic Advisors.
The market alone won't bring about a clean economy. We need the right supply chains for a low carbon economy. (? not sure what they were really saying).
They talked about how people don't think the Obama administration has made much progress.
They talked about structural problems for commercial building retrofitting.
- people under water
- unregulated derivatives markets and volatility in energy markets
A financial reform package would really help.
One problem is that there are no large scale program for commercial rehab to spark private investment.
Private industry is very responsive, though, to government incentives.
Hirschberg talked about how he really liked the $13.5 billion allocated for broadband for rural areas. It's important to have communications infrastructure for the agriculture industry. He also said how there is rampant farm decline right now.
Tolkan mentioned something that community volunteers were doing DC, going door to door signing people up for retrofitting. They would also work with local unions and contractors so that the extra business would bring more jobs. This was a way to create demand for green jobs.
This talk sometimes turned into more of a rally, especially since Tolkan is an organizer. They talked about how it's important that a popular movement is created instead of the Tea Party movement. Everyone needs to get involved on the grass roots level and to educate our peers on these issues to empower the leaders to lead. They were being aggressive and insistent to counter the feeling of despair after the Supreme Court ruling.
The Steady State Economy people asked Rouse what she thought about zero-net growth, and she really had no idea what they were talking about. That was kind of interesting since she is an economist, and she had never heard of an alternative to this cycle of growth that our economy is based on.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
NCSE Conference : Friday : Morning
On Friday, the day started with the heavy news that the US Supreme Court ruled that corporations have no spending limits in campaigns. Up until then, the general mood was that bringing about a new green economy would be an uphill battle, but that with hard work and determination, we can make steady gains. With this ruling, though, it was clear that the mood sank. There was a sense of alarm, a little bit of despair, but also more aggressive energy. The speeches got more motivational rather than educational. At times it was like a political rally or demonstration. When people start feeling like underdogs they get more spiritual, too. You need your leaders more than when you are doing well. Kind of like how Native Americans and black churches seem so spiritual as opposed to prim and proper WASPS, or at least that's my perspective on things. I don't think anyone would describe me as spiritual, though.
The first event of the day was a Moderated Roundtable on the New Green Economy: Moving from Theory to Action.
It was moderated by Mark Bernstein, the Energy Institute at the University of Southern California, and there were 4 speakers. Len Peters, Cabinet Secretary of Energy and Environment of Kentucky, Seth Dunn, Director of Renewable Energy Policy of GE Energy, Gary Guzy, White House Council on Environmental Quality, and Jacques Beaudry-Losique, DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
It was really an amazing discussion, but there were a few interesting parts. Peters was pretty focused on energy efficiency and "low hanging fruit." He mentioned that MA is the only other state with an Energy and Environment cabinet secretary. Most states separate energy and the environment. He said that 90% of electricity is coal, and 2/3 of the coal they mine is exported to other states. I would think that he should look more into renewable energy or at least something else for all those coal miners to do. They mentioned that Obama had $80 billion for clean energy in the stimulus plan.
Dunn talked about programs within the company like ecomagination, where people within the company does treasure hunts for energy savings. That was an interesting concept and is a solution to the fact that sometimes it's hard for companies to reduce waste because it's not any one person's responsibility to maximize efficient energy usage. GE has been reducing the energy intensity of the business, and he talked about how they have been doing a lot of R&D and that their renewable and environmental products are moving to the core of the business. We'll see about that.
For comparison, someone mentioned that China has committed to installing 150GW of windpower by 2020. The panel started discussing how oil and coal are heavily subsidized, and it would be helpful to have the prices be more accurate so that renewable power could be more competitive. Cap-and-trade legislation would also help with this because externalities would begin to get incorporated in the price. Beaudry-Losique pointed out, though, that shale gas, which is touted as a low carbon-emitting source of energy, is also subsidized because water is free, and processing the natural gas uses a lot of water.
Dunn mentioned that at GE, they do job tracking. They keep an account of jobs created and jobs disappeared and jobs shipped overseas due to new products. This is a very important concept, and I think it's really necessary for full employment without material growth.
Next I went to a symposium on Renewable Energy: How can we get there.
It was organized by Mark Bernstein, and some people made presentations: Marc L. Ulrich, South California Edison, Jigar Shah, the Carbon War Room, David E. Rogers, DOE, and Bobi Garrett, National Renewable Energy Lab, DOE.
Ulrich gave a presentation about Edison power and their obstacles with providing solar power. He talked about how state's RPS (renewable energy portfolio standards) can help create demand for solar power. I'm not exactly sure how it works, but somehow this is one of the more effective tools that governments have to support renewable energy. RPS goals can choose to favor "bundled" or "unbundled" energy "products". It's good to target broad markets for lower prices, and RPS goals for compliance should be flexible. This is important for jobs. State programs also need to have cost containment measures and identify competitive pricing alternatives to compliance. All load serving entities need to abide by equal rules. States playing favorites amongst companies can be very bad for the taxpayers and businesses.
So steps for states RPS programs:
1. create demand - through legislation and regulatory tools
2. incentivize supply - with tax rebates and loans
3. procurement
4. track the progress
He posted a graph of the biggest obstacles to installing wind power at his company, and number one was transmission, then finance, developer, permitting, and technology.
He talked about something called feed-in tariffs, but I didn't really know what he was saying.
Next Jigar Shah gave a presentation about business models and utility companies. This talk was the most interesting to me.
He first described the current business model of a utility company. They were allowed to be monopolies by the government in return for covering everyone in their area. Utility companies are rate-based so they divide the costs of operation amongst consumers. This means that when something goes over-budget, they just increase the prices for all their customers. Integrated Resource Planning process requires them to have to sell a certain amount of kW/hr. This business model makes utility companies kind of like banks so when people cut down on their energy usage, it is like a bunch of people are running on the bank. I thought that was an interesting analogy. One alternative business model to create an incentive for utilities to move to clean energy is to decouple profit from operations. One problem with that is that then there is no way for companies to grow, so you include an incentive payment. Then the problem is that it may eventually lead to 50% profits so in the long term, it's not a fair business model. Shah states that we need utilities 2.0, and he is convinced that it will be based on distributed power. However, he does not know all the specifics.
The other talks were things that I'm more familiar with so I didn't bother to take notes, actually. I took some notes from the Q&A section, though.
They talked about the need for reduced carbon intensity, which is carbon emissions/$ in order to reduce green house gases.
It's not good for goals set in legislation to be detailed.
They mentioned the company Sun Edison.
They also mentioned value propositions.
Most agreed that cap&trade legislation would help but not enough. They varied in how much they thought it would help. Shah did not think they would help very much. He and Ulrich agreed that incentives are more important. Even large oil and gas companies need incentives to try new things so in some cases, including environmental costs can be prohibitive.
Something that Shah thought was a problem was that environmentalists do not like distributed power, but there will not be a way to have centralized clean energy because it is impossible to allow people to run new transmission lines through their land for a variety of reasons.
The first event of the day was a Moderated Roundtable on the New Green Economy: Moving from Theory to Action.
It was moderated by Mark Bernstein, the Energy Institute at the University of Southern California, and there were 4 speakers. Len Peters, Cabinet Secretary of Energy and Environment of Kentucky, Seth Dunn, Director of Renewable Energy Policy of GE Energy, Gary Guzy, White House Council on Environmental Quality, and Jacques Beaudry-Losique, DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
It was really an amazing discussion, but there were a few interesting parts. Peters was pretty focused on energy efficiency and "low hanging fruit." He mentioned that MA is the only other state with an Energy and Environment cabinet secretary. Most states separate energy and the environment. He said that 90% of electricity is coal, and 2/3 of the coal they mine is exported to other states. I would think that he should look more into renewable energy or at least something else for all those coal miners to do. They mentioned that Obama had $80 billion for clean energy in the stimulus plan.
Dunn talked about programs within the company like ecomagination, where people within the company does treasure hunts for energy savings. That was an interesting concept and is a solution to the fact that sometimes it's hard for companies to reduce waste because it's not any one person's responsibility to maximize efficient energy usage. GE has been reducing the energy intensity of the business, and he talked about how they have been doing a lot of R&D and that their renewable and environmental products are moving to the core of the business. We'll see about that.
For comparison, someone mentioned that China has committed to installing 150GW of windpower by 2020. The panel started discussing how oil and coal are heavily subsidized, and it would be helpful to have the prices be more accurate so that renewable power could be more competitive. Cap-and-trade legislation would also help with this because externalities would begin to get incorporated in the price. Beaudry-Losique pointed out, though, that shale gas, which is touted as a low carbon-emitting source of energy, is also subsidized because water is free, and processing the natural gas uses a lot of water.
Dunn mentioned that at GE, they do job tracking. They keep an account of jobs created and jobs disappeared and jobs shipped overseas due to new products. This is a very important concept, and I think it's really necessary for full employment without material growth.
Next I went to a symposium on Renewable Energy: How can we get there.
It was organized by Mark Bernstein, and some people made presentations: Marc L. Ulrich, South California Edison, Jigar Shah, the Carbon War Room, David E. Rogers, DOE, and Bobi Garrett, National Renewable Energy Lab, DOE.
Ulrich gave a presentation about Edison power and their obstacles with providing solar power. He talked about how state's RPS (renewable energy portfolio standards) can help create demand for solar power. I'm not exactly sure how it works, but somehow this is one of the more effective tools that governments have to support renewable energy. RPS goals can choose to favor "bundled" or "unbundled" energy "products". It's good to target broad markets for lower prices, and RPS goals for compliance should be flexible. This is important for jobs. State programs also need to have cost containment measures and identify competitive pricing alternatives to compliance. All load serving entities need to abide by equal rules. States playing favorites amongst companies can be very bad for the taxpayers and businesses.
So steps for states RPS programs:
1. create demand - through legislation and regulatory tools
2. incentivize supply - with tax rebates and loans
3. procurement
4. track the progress
He posted a graph of the biggest obstacles to installing wind power at his company, and number one was transmission, then finance, developer, permitting, and technology.
He talked about something called feed-in tariffs, but I didn't really know what he was saying.
Next Jigar Shah gave a presentation about business models and utility companies. This talk was the most interesting to me.
He first described the current business model of a utility company. They were allowed to be monopolies by the government in return for covering everyone in their area. Utility companies are rate-based so they divide the costs of operation amongst consumers. This means that when something goes over-budget, they just increase the prices for all their customers. Integrated Resource Planning process requires them to have to sell a certain amount of kW/hr. This business model makes utility companies kind of like banks so when people cut down on their energy usage, it is like a bunch of people are running on the bank. I thought that was an interesting analogy. One alternative business model to create an incentive for utilities to move to clean energy is to decouple profit from operations. One problem with that is that then there is no way for companies to grow, so you include an incentive payment. Then the problem is that it may eventually lead to 50% profits so in the long term, it's not a fair business model. Shah states that we need utilities 2.0, and he is convinced that it will be based on distributed power. However, he does not know all the specifics.
The other talks were things that I'm more familiar with so I didn't bother to take notes, actually. I took some notes from the Q&A section, though.
They talked about the need for reduced carbon intensity, which is carbon emissions/$ in order to reduce green house gases.
It's not good for goals set in legislation to be detailed.
They mentioned the company Sun Edison.
They also mentioned value propositions.
Most agreed that cap&trade legislation would help but not enough. They varied in how much they thought it would help. Shah did not think they would help very much. He and Ulrich agreed that incentives are more important. Even large oil and gas companies need incentives to try new things so in some cases, including environmental costs can be prohibitive.
Something that Shah thought was a problem was that environmentalists do not like distributed power, but there will not be a way to have centralized clean energy because it is impossible to allow people to run new transmission lines through their land for a variety of reasons.
Monday, January 25, 2010
NCSE Conference : Thursday : Breakout Session and Speeches
Thursday afternoon I attended a breakout session on Bridging the Green Gap between Sustainable Product Research and Commercialization
Moderated by Susan Jenkins of Berkeley and CEREL. Other panelists include Bill Roper, Senior Advisor at Dawson and Associates, Katta Jayaram Reddy, University of Wyoming and CEREL, David Rigby, President of Waste Water Management Inc, and Alfonso Blanco, Program Manager of the EPA, Office of Waste Water Management.
All the panelists were small business and university researchers so it was really about small businesses, entrepreneurs, and inventors going through the patent process and getting start-up capital. The goal was to come up with suggestions for action to be presented in a report with suggestions from the other breakout sessions.
Not all universities have friendly technology transfer offices that assist researchers in patenting their ideas and developing them into commercial products. There are a lot of legal hurdles. Panelists wanted more incubators, a "one-stop shop" where inventors can work and also get help from lawyers. They say current incubators are too small and don't have permanent staff. Congress can give loans for IBO's.
Grand Canyon Problem is where do you get the capital. They talked about venture capitalist firms, but one guy insisted that angel investors are the way to go.
Third party certification programs or government certification programs can generate demand. Industry standards, LEED, EnergyStar, etc.
They were also in favor of clean technology competitions. They thought that was an efficient way to use money the way markets are efficient.
Some panelists expressed their view that inventors should be more concerned with publicity than with guarding their ideas from copiers. Being first to implement it and speed in getting ideas to commercialization is more important.
They mentioned an EPA program Smart Way.
Panelists agreed it would be great if there was a national database of projects, competitions, and businesses. A website they mentioned that sort of serve this purpose are input.com.
After the breakout session, the Lifetime Achievement Award was presented to Herman Daly, the granddaddy of ecological economics. I realized when he was talking that he was missing his right arm.
Then Gus Speth gave the Chafee Memorial Lecture. He founded the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) and a number of other environmental organizations. A few notable things are that he mentioned the establishment of the New Economics Institute and the book, "Managing Without Growth."
Moderated by Susan Jenkins of Berkeley and CEREL. Other panelists include Bill Roper, Senior Advisor at Dawson and Associates, Katta Jayaram Reddy, University of Wyoming and CEREL, David Rigby, President of Waste Water Management Inc, and Alfonso Blanco, Program Manager of the EPA, Office of Waste Water Management.
All the panelists were small business and university researchers so it was really about small businesses, entrepreneurs, and inventors going through the patent process and getting start-up capital. The goal was to come up with suggestions for action to be presented in a report with suggestions from the other breakout sessions.
Not all universities have friendly technology transfer offices that assist researchers in patenting their ideas and developing them into commercial products. There are a lot of legal hurdles. Panelists wanted more incubators, a "one-stop shop" where inventors can work and also get help from lawyers. They say current incubators are too small and don't have permanent staff. Congress can give loans for IBO's.
Grand Canyon Problem is where do you get the capital. They talked about venture capitalist firms, but one guy insisted that angel investors are the way to go.
Third party certification programs or government certification programs can generate demand. Industry standards, LEED, EnergyStar, etc.
They were also in favor of clean technology competitions. They thought that was an efficient way to use money the way markets are efficient.
Some panelists expressed their view that inventors should be more concerned with publicity than with guarding their ideas from copiers. Being first to implement it and speed in getting ideas to commercialization is more important.
They mentioned an EPA program Smart Way.
Panelists agreed it would be great if there was a national database of projects, competitions, and businesses. A website they mentioned that sort of serve this purpose are input.com.
After the breakout session, the Lifetime Achievement Award was presented to Herman Daly, the granddaddy of ecological economics. I realized when he was talking that he was missing his right arm.
Then Gus Speth gave the Chafee Memorial Lecture. He founded the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) and a number of other environmental organizations. A few notable things are that he mentioned the establishment of the New Economics Institute and the book, "Managing Without Growth."
Sunday, January 24, 2010
NCSE Conference : Thursday : Plenary Roundtable
The first plenary roundtable was on Growing the Green Economy or Greening the Grown Economy? Actually, I think the title is kind of stupid, but they didn't really talk about this topic, and so the discussion was quite good.
It was moderated by Bob Costanza - ecological economist at the University of Vermont.
Panelists include Mindy Lubber (president of CERES), Van Jones (author of Green Collar Economy), Tim Jackson (Economics Commissioner of the UK Sustainable Development Commission), and David Orr (economist at the University of Vermont).
Bob Costanza promoted his new "Solutions" Magazine. It looks pretty good. The first issue included a classic article by Donella Meadows on system dynamics and system thinking. It also had an article by Michael Pollan and another article coauthored by Bill McKibbon.
Question: Is growth sustainable and is it desirable?
Tim Jackson started out answering that resource-based GDP growth is not sustainable. Value-based GDP growth could be sustainable but we're not measuring that. In October of 2008, Greenspan said that he found some flaws...This was a major event, and it signals the inability for neoclassical economics to explain the downturn as well as paths to recovery.
We are generating "ecological debt" for future generations. Even before the recession hit, though, we were never as rich as we thought in terms of life satisfaction.
Van Jones talked about being inspired by Bobby Kennedy who talked about how negative expenditures (such as sickness and war) contribute to growing GDP. It's important to note that for other billions of the poorest people, growth is a good thing. It does pull people out of poverty and meet their material and health needs. It also increases a person's access to education and life fulfillment.
Orr talked about how major growth was achieved from the military economy. The way we grew was from sprawl, and people eventually moved out of the cities such as the Rust Belt cities into suburbia. It sounds like Orr is talking about urban decay.
Lubber said that people in power support growth. She is referring to the financial world and the political world.
Van Jones pointed out that there are three crises right now. 1. recession 2. structural (jobs not coming back) 3. ecological
They mention "Managing Without Growth," a book by Peter Victor.
We need ecological investment and ecological enterprise. We need honest accounting and innovation in service business models. The major amendment to neoclassical economics is that there is now less nature and more people. Neoclassical economics itself was born during a time where natural resources seemed limitless.
In order to bring about a new world of ecological enterprise, we need ecopopulism. We need to spread the word and make a mass movement to demand this change.
How do we get there?
Currently, the structure of the economy is addicted to growth. At Oberlin, they are building models of sustainability.
Second plenary roundtable was on the Role of Science, Technology and Education in Greening the New Economy moderated by David Gergen (political analyst and Harvard University faculty), and the speakers were Michael Crow (President of the Arizona State University), Richard Freeman (professor of economics at Harvard), Martha Kanter (Under Secretary of the US Department of Education), Rush Holt (D-NJ), and Kyang-Ah Park (Veep of the Environmental Markets Group at Goldman Sachs).
It was not a great discussion, but it's also not really my main interest.
They said that the government had to invest $150 billion dollars to create 2 million jobs, which comes out to $75,000/person for 1 year.
Kanter talked about how people are dropping out of school so they're losing economic and social competitiveness. It's hard, though, because they're walking away from programs that already exist so the government is in this parental role of convincing people to look out for their own interests.
Crow had an interesting analysis that the National Defense Education Act left behind 80% of students, telling them that they didn't need a science education. This not only has to be reversed, but people need to be trained in systems thinking and education needs to be more interdisciplinary.
Park said something that was revealing when asked about whether Goldman Sachs and other corporations can take risks. She said that businesses "do take risk" but can't/won't invest in basic sciences and R&D because it's too risky, so government has to step into that role. Businesses can only fund development for technologies that are close to commercialization.
It was moderated by Bob Costanza - ecological economist at the University of Vermont.
Panelists include Mindy Lubber (president of CERES), Van Jones (author of Green Collar Economy), Tim Jackson (Economics Commissioner of the UK Sustainable Development Commission), and David Orr (economist at the University of Vermont).
Bob Costanza promoted his new "Solutions" Magazine. It looks pretty good. The first issue included a classic article by Donella Meadows on system dynamics and system thinking. It also had an article by Michael Pollan and another article coauthored by Bill McKibbon.
Question: Is growth sustainable and is it desirable?
Tim Jackson started out answering that resource-based GDP growth is not sustainable. Value-based GDP growth could be sustainable but we're not measuring that. In October of 2008, Greenspan said that he found some flaws...This was a major event, and it signals the inability for neoclassical economics to explain the downturn as well as paths to recovery.
We are generating "ecological debt" for future generations. Even before the recession hit, though, we were never as rich as we thought in terms of life satisfaction.
Van Jones talked about being inspired by Bobby Kennedy who talked about how negative expenditures (such as sickness and war) contribute to growing GDP. It's important to note that for other billions of the poorest people, growth is a good thing. It does pull people out of poverty and meet their material and health needs. It also increases a person's access to education and life fulfillment.
Orr talked about how major growth was achieved from the military economy. The way we grew was from sprawl, and people eventually moved out of the cities such as the Rust Belt cities into suburbia. It sounds like Orr is talking about urban decay.
Lubber said that people in power support growth. She is referring to the financial world and the political world.
Van Jones pointed out that there are three crises right now. 1. recession 2. structural (jobs not coming back) 3. ecological
They mention "Managing Without Growth," a book by Peter Victor.
We need ecological investment and ecological enterprise. We need honest accounting and innovation in service business models. The major amendment to neoclassical economics is that there is now less nature and more people. Neoclassical economics itself was born during a time where natural resources seemed limitless.
In order to bring about a new world of ecological enterprise, we need ecopopulism. We need to spread the word and make a mass movement to demand this change.
How do we get there?
Currently, the structure of the economy is addicted to growth. At Oberlin, they are building models of sustainability.
Second plenary roundtable was on the Role of Science, Technology and Education in Greening the New Economy moderated by David Gergen (political analyst and Harvard University faculty), and the speakers were Michael Crow (President of the Arizona State University), Richard Freeman (professor of economics at Harvard), Martha Kanter (Under Secretary of the US Department of Education), Rush Holt (D-NJ), and Kyang-Ah Park (Veep of the Environmental Markets Group at Goldman Sachs).
It was not a great discussion, but it's also not really my main interest.
They said that the government had to invest $150 billion dollars to create 2 million jobs, which comes out to $75,000/person for 1 year.
Kanter talked about how people are dropping out of school so they're losing economic and social competitiveness. It's hard, though, because they're walking away from programs that already exist so the government is in this parental role of convincing people to look out for their own interests.
Crow had an interesting analysis that the National Defense Education Act left behind 80% of students, telling them that they didn't need a science education. This not only has to be reversed, but people need to be trained in systems thinking and education needs to be more interdisciplinary.
Park said something that was revealing when asked about whether Goldman Sachs and other corporations can take risks. She said that businesses "do take risk" but can't/won't invest in basic sciences and R&D because it's too risky, so government has to step into that role. Businesses can only fund development for technologies that are close to commercialization.
NCSE Conference : Thursday : Keynotes
The NCSE president Ambassador Richard Benedick gave an introduction. He "played a major role in global environmental affairs as chief U.S. negotiator and a principal architect of the historic Montreal Protocol on protection of the ozone layer." He's a career diplomat, which is apparently rare nowadays, and he has worked under many administrations, taking a lot of heat during the Reagan administration. He seemed like a pretty cool guy.
Following the introduction were some keynote addresses on "How Can We Get There From Here?"
Chad Holliday, chairman and CEO emeritus of DuPont, was a pretty good speaker and good at fielding questions from the audience. He coauthors the book, "Walking the Talk: The Business Case for Sustainable Development".
Navigation - Direction, Pace, Path
Prudence - Efficiency, Behavior, Electrification
DuPont held energy use flat while increasing production. He also recommended Nudge, the book, for creating demand.
At DuPont, they actually keep an internal measurement of value added/lb (I'm not sure if it's per pound of output or input).
He also recommended the book "Free Fall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the Global Economy" by Joe Stiglitz, economist and Nobel Prize recipient.
Holliday gave an alternative business model for utility companies to make the transition to solar power where utilities have the option to add capacity by retrofitting houses or installing solar panels instead of adding a coal plant.
He mentions the US Citizen's Network for Sustainable Development, and I noted that he sounds like a crazy person.
The book "Sustainability By Design" was brought up during the questions.
The Second Nature program is also brought up, and it's a program where colleges commit to being carbon neutral.
DuPont does not exactly support cap and trade, but it does believe in more accurate accounting of externalities. They would, however, prefer certainty over cap and trade.
The next speaker was Bill Spriggs, the Assistant Secretary to the US Department of Labor. He was not a great speaker, but he mentioned some programs such as $700 for Labor to design programs for green jobs, and they recently finished contracting all that money. Work Force Investment Act, State-based energy programs, local businesses and unions. A bigger problem is structural unemployment, which are jobs that are not coming back.
The last speech was given by Lisa Johnson, secretary of the EPA. It was noted that she is a career EPA employee. She talked about how science needs to be more important than politics so that the EPA can regain some credibility.
1. a green economy is a strong economy
2. the moment compels us
3. clean energy is the next big industry
4. we need positive externalities to our economic activity
In 2001, the US had a plan for increasing domestic energy supply (oil) to lower energy prices, but it did not work. We need to remember this.
Her speech was mainly an invigorating one.
Following the introduction were some keynote addresses on "How Can We Get There From Here?"
Chad Holliday, chairman and CEO emeritus of DuPont, was a pretty good speaker and good at fielding questions from the audience. He coauthors the book, "Walking the Talk: The Business Case for Sustainable Development".
Navigation - Direction, Pace, Path
Prudence - Efficiency, Behavior, Electrification
DuPont held energy use flat while increasing production. He also recommended Nudge, the book, for creating demand.
At DuPont, they actually keep an internal measurement of value added/lb (I'm not sure if it's per pound of output or input).
He also recommended the book "Free Fall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the Global Economy" by Joe Stiglitz, economist and Nobel Prize recipient.
Holliday gave an alternative business model for utility companies to make the transition to solar power where utilities have the option to add capacity by retrofitting houses or installing solar panels instead of adding a coal plant.
He mentions the US Citizen's Network for Sustainable Development, and I noted that he sounds like a crazy person.
The book "Sustainability By Design" was brought up during the questions.
The Second Nature program is also brought up, and it's a program where colleges commit to being carbon neutral.
DuPont does not exactly support cap and trade, but it does believe in more accurate accounting of externalities. They would, however, prefer certainty over cap and trade.
The next speaker was Bill Spriggs, the Assistant Secretary to the US Department of Labor. He was not a great speaker, but he mentioned some programs such as $700 for Labor to design programs for green jobs, and they recently finished contracting all that money. Work Force Investment Act, State-based energy programs, local businesses and unions. A bigger problem is structural unemployment, which are jobs that are not coming back.
The last speech was given by Lisa Johnson, secretary of the EPA. It was noted that she is a career EPA employee. She talked about how science needs to be more important than politics so that the EPA can regain some credibility.
1. a green economy is a strong economy
2. the moment compels us
3. clean energy is the next big industry
4. we need positive externalities to our economic activity
In 2001, the US had a plan for increasing domestic energy supply (oil) to lower energy prices, but it did not work. We need to remember this.
Her speech was mainly an invigorating one.
NCSE Conference : Wednesday
On Wednesday, I went to an all-day workshop at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies on Alternatives to Neoclassical Economics. It was pretty interesting, but it wasn't as rigorous about the economics as I hoped.
The Potomac Institute for Policy Studies (PIPS) is a science and technology think tank. They work for a variety of people including defense. They just started a new research group called the Center for Environmental Economics and Ethics headed by James Tate. The workshop was hosted by Jim Giordano, who is the head of all the Academic Programs at PIPS. He introduced the speakers and also summarized their points pretty well although he has a pretty erudite way of speaking that was sometimes hard to follow. But he did tend to be precise in what he said.
I. James Tate give an introductory talk on the New Green Economy, kind of a historical overview.
CP Snow - thinker who talked about the cultural dichotomy of science and the humanities. -> there is currently a dichotomy between neoclassical economics and "value economics."
In Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith took laws of physics and applied them to economics, focusing on markets and pricing. However, constraints on renewable and nonrenewable resources are not taken into account. At that time, when resources were much more abundant, the assumption was that there would always be much more resources to accommodate human activity.
James W. Boyd wrote about how non-commodity resources are not factored into the GDP.
Robin O'Malley, a scientist at the Heintz Center wrote the 2008 Heinz State of the Nation's Ecosystems Report. He tried to implement some metrics, but it's hard to establish any monitoring system in the US politically.
Two growing fields are 1. Conservation biology and 2. behavioral economics to explain market inefficiencies.
Herman Daly is the grandfather of ecological economics.
In order to transition to ecological economics
1. teach critical thinking and scientific method
2. understand mankind is subject to laws of nature
3. spread the word and facts
4. fund research into natural sciences
5. manage population levels of organisms, especially humans
6. develop and implement sustainable strategies for agriculture, energy use, and natural resource management
Giordano mentions the concept of "tripping points." I'm not exactly clear on what he's talking about, actually.
II. Dr. Richard Margrave, Global Economics for Growth and Survival
Dr. Margrave is a British consultant in policy, politics, and media. He actually gave a talk through Skype. He talked about G20 and how they had declared commitment to sustainable development at some point. They said they were interested in a "resilient, sustainable, green recovery." He says that financial institutions are shaken right now, although they seem to be doing better than many other sectors right now.
He offered 12 steps to sustainable development
1. develop macroeconomic capability (I'm not that sure about that wording).
2. invest in public access and infrastructure
3. increase financial and fiscal prudence, increase public control of investment, outlaw short selling
4. reform macroeconomic accounting, less emphasis on consumption
5. sharing work and work-life balance, reduce working hours, don't discriminate against part time work
6. tackling systemic inequality because income inequality drives consumption (question: is high pay for GM workers consistent with this policy)
7. measuring capabilities, include health and social indicators
8. protect public things such as museums, public broadcasting
9. reverse culture of consumerism, regulate commercial media, fair trade
10. respect ecological limits, emission caps, declining caps on throughput, limits for per capita waste and emissions
11. fiscal reform for sustainability, green taxation - shift from income tax like Denmark and Germany
12. support technology transfer, set up global technology fund
These suggestions were put forth in a Report by the Sustainability Commission in the UK. richard -at- margrave -dot- co -dot- uk
He mentioned "Our Common Future," which is also known as the Brundland Report put out by the UN World Commission on Environment and Development
However, Iceland recently voted down reining in the banks, which is a setback.
III. Warren Flint on A Systems Approach to Sustainable Development.
He's a consultant in Seattle at 5E's Unlimited. He mentioned McDonough's "Fractal Triangle of Sustainability." His systems approach is not the same as system dynamics, though. It's more about the triple bottom line and community development.
He talks about how governments are attempting to increase liquidity to get out of the recession and he showed a graph of the credit market debt as a percentage of GDP. There was a spike in the 30's and it has been ramping up recently. Getting goods needs to depend on availability of resources not money, which depends on the continuance of economic growth.
Borrowed man and the Tildian Iteration (sp?).
IV. Jim Giordano and A Green Economy, Practical and Ethical Issues
This talk was more about framing the issues.
Business as Human Enterprise - technologic imperative "if I build it, they will come," but do we want them to come
ecology and security of "goods"
1. biopower - use/misuse of ecological resources to control, manipulate and/or manifest vulnerability of others or systems
2. biopolitics - socio-political activities of biopower of groups and/or nations
ethics : human ecology - care, sustainability, and stewardship
risk and ethical management paradigm
1. precautionary
2. personnel
3. predictions
4. policies
rationality agenda - confronting problems and issues
1. runaway effects of technology
2. biopower
3. Wexelblatt effects
4. tripping hazards
Arendtian Ethic - homo faber = intelligent person vs. animal laborens
V. Joan Michelson - Speaking to All Points of View
This talk is really about advertising and creating demand. Consumers drive 70% of the economy. Consumers make decisions based on emotions. "Do I love it?"
She recommends the book "Nudge" by Richard H. Thaler and Cass Sunstein.
behavioral economics - losing something makes people feel twice as bad as gaining feels good. people want feedback/compliments
choice architecture
iNcentives
Understand mappings
Defaults
Give feedback
Expect error
Structure complex choices
key problem for reducing carbon footprint is that energy is Invisible!
part of why the Prius is successful is because they look different and are thus easily identifiable allowing the ownership to have social rewards
Things need to be easy, attractive, affordable, convenient, and popular or at least perceived popular
-create econometrics and incentives for energy
develop energy use standard to make it tangible by making an Energy label similar to Nutritional facts label.
she also recommends "Influence" by Robert Cialdini
another thing could be an Energy Efficiency Card like a membership card where people get discounts for things. It would also become a status symbol.
VI. Dr. Brian Czech on Moving Towards a Sustainable Steady State Economy
He is the president of CASSE, Center for the Advancement of a Steady State Economy.
Academics -
Physiocrats
Classical
Marxist
Georgist
Neoclassical
Heterodox
Henry George wrote "Progress and Poverty." Georgists became shunned because they recommend taxing land. In response, there was a Marginalist Revolution that established American economics and the tax code.
"The Corruption of Economics" by Mason Gaffney documents the rise of Marginalism and neoclassical economics and the anti-George backlash.
The Solow, Lucus, Romer production function Y = f(K,L) where output is a function of capital and labor. Land or other natural resources are not included. Perhaps they are nominally included in capital, but that's not usually how it's calculated.
ecological economics would incorporate the laws of thermodynamics. (This seems iffy to me).
The sigmoid curve shows that as time passes, the GDP, which represents human activity correlates to a greater percentage of available natural capital.
scale - Daly
Distribution - Martinez-Alier
Allocation - Costanza
conventional economic policy uses three tools -
1. fiscal - budgets and taxes
2. monetary - interest rates, money supplies
3. trade
Herman Daly's top ten suggestions for a sustainable economy
1. cap and trade systems
2. tax throughput not labor/capital
3. limit range of income inequality
4. flexible working hours - overemployment problem
5. use tariffs to protect cost-internalization
6. "downgrade" IMF-World Bank-WTO, prevent trade surpluses as well as deficits
7. adjust reserve requirements to 100% (that will never happen)
8. enclose remaining commons in public trust
9. stabilize population
10. reform national accounts
Optimum scale and marginal utility - we need to distinguish economic vs. uneconomic growth.
ISEW - Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare
GPI - Genuine Progress Indicator
De-growth movement is gaining traction in Europe
La Decroissance, Growth moratoria, Thaland's sufficiency economy, Bhutan's Gross Happiness
We have a pro-growth complex of economic policy authorities, corporations, and politicians. A coalition of professional societies can break through this complex.
Degrowth Economists - Herman Daly, Richard Douthwaite, Roefie Hueting, Tim Jackson, Joan Martinez-Alier, and Peter Victor
The Potomac Institute for Policy Studies (PIPS) is a science and technology think tank. They work for a variety of people including defense. They just started a new research group called the Center for Environmental Economics and Ethics headed by James Tate. The workshop was hosted by Jim Giordano, who is the head of all the Academic Programs at PIPS. He introduced the speakers and also summarized their points pretty well although he has a pretty erudite way of speaking that was sometimes hard to follow. But he did tend to be precise in what he said.
I. James Tate give an introductory talk on the New Green Economy, kind of a historical overview.
CP Snow - thinker who talked about the cultural dichotomy of science and the humanities. -> there is currently a dichotomy between neoclassical economics and "value economics."
In Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith took laws of physics and applied them to economics, focusing on markets and pricing. However, constraints on renewable and nonrenewable resources are not taken into account. At that time, when resources were much more abundant, the assumption was that there would always be much more resources to accommodate human activity.
James W. Boyd wrote about how non-commodity resources are not factored into the GDP.
Robin O'Malley, a scientist at the Heintz Center wrote the 2008 Heinz State of the Nation's Ecosystems Report. He tried to implement some metrics, but it's hard to establish any monitoring system in the US politically.
Two growing fields are 1. Conservation biology and 2. behavioral economics to explain market inefficiencies.
Herman Daly is the grandfather of ecological economics.
In order to transition to ecological economics
1. teach critical thinking and scientific method
2. understand mankind is subject to laws of nature
3. spread the word and facts
4. fund research into natural sciences
5. manage population levels of organisms, especially humans
6. develop and implement sustainable strategies for agriculture, energy use, and natural resource management
Giordano mentions the concept of "tripping points." I'm not exactly clear on what he's talking about, actually.
II. Dr. Richard Margrave, Global Economics for Growth and Survival
Dr. Margrave is a British consultant in policy, politics, and media. He actually gave a talk through Skype. He talked about G20 and how they had declared commitment to sustainable development at some point. They said they were interested in a "resilient, sustainable, green recovery." He says that financial institutions are shaken right now, although they seem to be doing better than many other sectors right now.
He offered 12 steps to sustainable development
1. develop macroeconomic capability (I'm not that sure about that wording).
2. invest in public access and infrastructure
3. increase financial and fiscal prudence, increase public control of investment, outlaw short selling
4. reform macroeconomic accounting, less emphasis on consumption
5. sharing work and work-life balance, reduce working hours, don't discriminate against part time work
6. tackling systemic inequality because income inequality drives consumption (question: is high pay for GM workers consistent with this policy)
7. measuring capabilities, include health and social indicators
8. protect public things such as museums, public broadcasting
9. reverse culture of consumerism, regulate commercial media, fair trade
10. respect ecological limits, emission caps, declining caps on throughput, limits for per capita waste and emissions
11. fiscal reform for sustainability, green taxation - shift from income tax like Denmark and Germany
12. support technology transfer, set up global technology fund
These suggestions were put forth in a Report by the Sustainability Commission in the UK. richard -at- margrave -dot- co -dot- uk
He mentioned "Our Common Future," which is also known as the Brundland Report put out by the UN World Commission on Environment and Development
However, Iceland recently voted down reining in the banks, which is a setback.
III. Warren Flint on A Systems Approach to Sustainable Development.
He's a consultant in Seattle at 5E's Unlimited. He mentioned McDonough's "Fractal Triangle of Sustainability." His systems approach is not the same as system dynamics, though. It's more about the triple bottom line and community development.
He talks about how governments are attempting to increase liquidity to get out of the recession and he showed a graph of the credit market debt as a percentage of GDP. There was a spike in the 30's and it has been ramping up recently. Getting goods needs to depend on availability of resources not money, which depends on the continuance of economic growth.
Borrowed man and the Tildian Iteration (sp?).
IV. Jim Giordano and A Green Economy, Practical and Ethical Issues
This talk was more about framing the issues.
Business as Human Enterprise - technologic imperative "if I build it, they will come," but do we want them to come
ecology and security of "goods"
1. biopower - use/misuse of ecological resources to control, manipulate and/or manifest vulnerability of others or systems
2. biopolitics - socio-political activities of biopower of groups and/or nations
ethics : human ecology - care, sustainability, and stewardship
risk and ethical management paradigm
1. precautionary
2. personnel
3. predictions
4. policies
rationality agenda - confronting problems and issues
1. runaway effects of technology
2. biopower
3. Wexelblatt effects
4. tripping hazards
Arendtian Ethic - homo faber = intelligent person vs. animal laborens
V. Joan Michelson - Speaking to All Points of View
This talk is really about advertising and creating demand. Consumers drive 70% of the economy. Consumers make decisions based on emotions. "Do I love it?"
She recommends the book "Nudge" by Richard H. Thaler and Cass Sunstein.
behavioral economics - losing something makes people feel twice as bad as gaining feels good. people want feedback/compliments
choice architecture
iNcentives
Understand mappings
Defaults
Give feedback
Expect error
Structure complex choices
key problem for reducing carbon footprint is that energy is Invisible!
part of why the Prius is successful is because they look different and are thus easily identifiable allowing the ownership to have social rewards
Things need to be easy, attractive, affordable, convenient, and popular or at least perceived popular
-create econometrics and incentives for energy
develop energy use standard to make it tangible by making an Energy label similar to Nutritional facts label.
she also recommends "Influence" by Robert Cialdini
another thing could be an Energy Efficiency Card like a membership card where people get discounts for things. It would also become a status symbol.
VI. Dr. Brian Czech on Moving Towards a Sustainable Steady State Economy
He is the president of CASSE, Center for the Advancement of a Steady State Economy.
Academics -
Physiocrats
Classical
Marxist
Georgist
Neoclassical
Heterodox
Henry George wrote "Progress and Poverty." Georgists became shunned because they recommend taxing land. In response, there was a Marginalist Revolution that established American economics and the tax code.
"The Corruption of Economics" by Mason Gaffney documents the rise of Marginalism and neoclassical economics and the anti-George backlash.
The Solow, Lucus, Romer production function Y = f(K,L) where output is a function of capital and labor. Land or other natural resources are not included. Perhaps they are nominally included in capital, but that's not usually how it's calculated.
ecological economics would incorporate the laws of thermodynamics. (This seems iffy to me).
The sigmoid curve shows that as time passes, the GDP, which represents human activity correlates to a greater percentage of available natural capital.
scale - Daly
Distribution - Martinez-Alier
Allocation - Costanza
conventional economic policy uses three tools -
1. fiscal - budgets and taxes
2. monetary - interest rates, money supplies
3. trade
Herman Daly's top ten suggestions for a sustainable economy
1. cap and trade systems
2. tax throughput not labor/capital
3. limit range of income inequality
4. flexible working hours - overemployment problem
5. use tariffs to protect cost-internalization
6. "downgrade" IMF-World Bank-WTO, prevent trade surpluses as well as deficits
7. adjust reserve requirements to 100% (that will never happen)
8. enclose remaining commons in public trust
9. stabilize population
10. reform national accounts
Optimum scale and marginal utility - we need to distinguish economic vs. uneconomic growth.
ISEW - Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare
GPI - Genuine Progress Indicator
De-growth movement is gaining traction in Europe
La Decroissance, Growth moratoria, Thaland's sufficiency economy, Bhutan's Gross Happiness
We have a pro-growth complex of economic policy authorities, corporations, and politicians. A coalition of professional societies can break through this complex.
Degrowth Economists - Herman Daly, Richard Douthwaite, Roefie Hueting, Tim Jackson, Joan Martinez-Alier, and Peter Victor
NCSE Conference Debriefing
I went to DC last week for a conference on the New Green Economy put together by NCSE (National Council for Science and the Environment), a non-profit independent NGO, and it was really great.
It was a three-day conference packed with events. Most of the events were at the Ronald Reagan and International Trade Center Building in downtown DC, which is also where the EPA offices are located. (Interesting tidbit: There was a lot of security in those buildings. You get screened when you come in, and there were a lot of places where you needed different levels of security clearances.)
It was attended primarily by representatives of universities like heads of the sustainability programs and people who worked in the government like EPA employees. There were also a number of small business owners in the renewable energy market and various environmental and economic consultants.
On the whole, discussions were very interesting and several major themes emerged.
1. The current economic model of exponential economic growth is not environmentally sustainable. At the very least, material throughput and carbon emissions need to stop growing. It's unclear how this is possible while maintaining full levels of employment. Not everyone was behind this idea. It's unclear if the business people really understood what this meant, and certainly many panel speakers had never heard of this concept. More work needs to be done in the field of ecological economics as an alternative to neoclassical economics to provide a robust framework for national economic policy.
2. Everyone needs to think about what a "new green economy," an environmentally sustainable economy will look like. People at this conference were interested in providing a better quality of life for people, a stable society, a stable economy, and providing for future generations.
3. There is still a lot that can be done within the current economic framework to increase energy efficiency and reduce material throughput. The most useful things the government can do is to create demand through incentives so that energy efficient technologies and renewable energy businesses can break into the market. People were interested in more accurate accounting of positive as well as negative externalities, which includes pricing the usage of resources such as water.
4. A lot of the demand needs to come from the bottom up, which means we have a long ways to go to educate the public about these issues. Politically, there have been major setbacks to those who are interested in a new green economy. People were certainly starting to feel a little sick, almost despairing, but in general felt even greater urgency than before and committed to action. It got to be like rallying the forces by the end.
I took a lot of notes and will be blogging about all the events I went to in the next few posts.
It was a three-day conference packed with events. Most of the events were at the Ronald Reagan and International Trade Center Building in downtown DC, which is also where the EPA offices are located. (Interesting tidbit: There was a lot of security in those buildings. You get screened when you come in, and there were a lot of places where you needed different levels of security clearances.)
It was attended primarily by representatives of universities like heads of the sustainability programs and people who worked in the government like EPA employees. There were also a number of small business owners in the renewable energy market and various environmental and economic consultants.
On the whole, discussions were very interesting and several major themes emerged.
1. The current economic model of exponential economic growth is not environmentally sustainable. At the very least, material throughput and carbon emissions need to stop growing. It's unclear how this is possible while maintaining full levels of employment. Not everyone was behind this idea. It's unclear if the business people really understood what this meant, and certainly many panel speakers had never heard of this concept. More work needs to be done in the field of ecological economics as an alternative to neoclassical economics to provide a robust framework for national economic policy.
2. Everyone needs to think about what a "new green economy," an environmentally sustainable economy will look like. People at this conference were interested in providing a better quality of life for people, a stable society, a stable economy, and providing for future generations.
3. There is still a lot that can be done within the current economic framework to increase energy efficiency and reduce material throughput. The most useful things the government can do is to create demand through incentives so that energy efficient technologies and renewable energy businesses can break into the market. People were interested in more accurate accounting of positive as well as negative externalities, which includes pricing the usage of resources such as water.
4. A lot of the demand needs to come from the bottom up, which means we have a long ways to go to educate the public about these issues. Politically, there have been major setbacks to those who are interested in a new green economy. People were certainly starting to feel a little sick, almost despairing, but in general felt even greater urgency than before and committed to action. It got to be like rallying the forces by the end.
I took a lot of notes and will be blogging about all the events I went to in the next few posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)