by Robert Stavins
This may seem like a trivial question with an obvious answer. But
what really is the proper role for individuals and institutions in
addressing climate change? An immediate and natural response may be
that everyone should do their part. Let’s see what that really means.
Decisions affecting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, for example, are made primarily by companies and consumers. This includes decisions by companies about
how to produce electricity, as well as thousands of other goods and
services; and decisions by consumers regarding what to buy, how to
transport themselves, and how to keep their homes warm, cool, and light.
However, despite the fact that these decisions are made by firms and individuals, government action is clearly key, because climate change is an externality,
and it is rarely, if ever, in the self-interest of firms or individuals
to take unilateral actions. That’s why the climate problem exists, in
the first place. Voluntary initiatives – no matter how well-intended – will not only be insufficient, but insignificant relative to the magnitude of the problem.
So, the question becomes how to shift decisions by firms
and individuals in a climate-friendly direction, such as toward
emissions reductions. Whether conventional standards or market-based
instruments are used, meaningful government regulation will be required.
But where does this leave the role and responsibility of individuals
and institutions? Let me use as an example my employer, a university.
A couple of years ago, I met with students advocating for a reduced
“carbon foot-print” for the school. Here is what I told them.
“I was asked by a major oil company to advise on the design of an internal, voluntary tradable permit systems for CO2 emissions. My response to the company was ‘fine, but the emissions
from your production processes — largely refineries — are trivial
compared with the emissions from the use of your products (combustion
of fossil fuels). If you really want to do something meaningful about
climate change, the focus should be on the use of your products, not
your internal production process.’ (My response would have been
different had they been a cement producer.) The oil company proceeded
with its internal measures, which – as I anticipated – had trivial, if any impacts on the environment (and they subsequently used the existence of their voluntary program as an argument against government attempts to put in place a meaningful climate policy).”
My view of a university’s responsibilities in the environmental
realm is similar. Our direct impact on the natural environment — such
as in terms of CO2 emissions from our heating plants — is
absolutely trivial compared with the impacts on the environment
(including climate change) of our products: knowledge
produced through research, informed students produced through our
teaching, and outreach to the policy world carried out by faculty.
So, I suggested to the students that if they were really concerned
with how the university affects climate change, then their greatest
attention should be given to priorities and performance in the realms
of teaching, research, and outreach.
Of course, it is also true that work on the “greening of the
university” can in some cases play a relevant role in research and
teaching. And, more broadly — and more importantly — the university’s
actions in regard to its “carbon footprint” can have symbolic value.
And symbolic actions — even when they mean little in terms of real,
direct impacts — can have effects in the larger political world. This
is particularly true in the case of a prominent university, such as my
own.
But, overall, my institution’s greatest opportunity — indeed, its greatest responsibility — with regard to addressing global climate change is and will be through its research, teaching, and outreach to the policy community.
Why not focus equally on reducing the university’s carbon foot-print while also working to increase and improve relevant research, teaching, and
outreach? The answer brings up a phrase that will be familiar to
readers of this blog – opportunity cost. Faculty, staff, and students all have limited time; indeed, as in many
other professional settings, time is the scarcest of scarce resources. Giving more attention to one issue inevitably means – for some people – giving less time to another.
So my advice to the students was to advocate for more
faculty appointments in the environmental realm and to press for more
and better courses. After all, it was student demand at my institution
that resulted in the creation of the college’s highly successful
concentration (major) in environmental science and public policy.
My bottom line? Try to focus on actions that can make a real difference, as opposed to actions that may feel good or look good but have relatively little real-world impact, particularly when those feel-good/look-good actions
have opportunity costs, that is, divert us from focusing on actions
that would make a significant difference. Climate change is a real and pressing problem.
Strong government actions will be required, as well as enlightened
political leadership at the national and international levels.
——————————————————————-
Epilogue: After I posted the above essay, I was reminded of an
incident that took place many years ago (before I came to Harvard for
graduate school, in fact) when I was working full-time for the
Environmental Defense Fund in Berkeley, California, under the inspired
leadership of the late (and truly great) Tom Graff, the long-time guru
of progressive California water policy. EDF was very engaged at the
time in promoting better water policies in California, including the
use of trading mechanisms and appropriate pricing schemes for scarce
water supplies. A prominent national newspaper which was not friendly
to EDF’s work sent a reporter to EDF’s office to profile the group’s
efforts on water policy in the State. A staff member found the
reporter in the office bathroom examining whether EDF had voluntarily
installed various kinds of water conservation devices. Our reaction at
the time was that whether or not EDF had voluntarily installed water
conservation devices was simply and purely an (intentional) distraction
from the important work the group was carrying out. After several
decades, my view of that incident has not changed.
Related Links:
Ending North Carolina’s dependence on dirty coal
The Septical Environmentalist (sic) says 16 feet of sea level rise wouldn’t b
A messy but practical strategy for phasing out the U.S. coal fleet