Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

WSSD-U-2016 Sept 14 Opening Panel

1,471 views

Published on

Opening day of WSSD-U-2016 at MIT on September 14. Slides from Opening remarks and first Panel: Are sustainability policies good indicators of commitment of higher education institutions?

Published in: Environment
  • ⇒ www.HelpWriting.net ⇐ This service will write as best as they can. So you do not need to waste the time on rewritings.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • You have to choose carefully. ⇒ www.WritePaper.info ⇐ offers a professional writing service. I highly recommend them. The papers are delivered on time and customers are their first priority. This is their website: ⇒ www.WritePaper.info ⇐
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

WSSD-U-2016 Sept 14 Opening Panel

  1. 1. Designing Tomorrow’s Campus: Resiliency, Vulnerability, and Adaptation 14-16 September 2016 WSSD-U 2016
  2. 2. WSSD-U 2016 attendees: 33 countries
  3. 3. connect download the guidebook app and get speaker bios, full agenda, and more! guidebook.com/g/sustainconnect16 WSSD-U-2016
  4. 4. 4:00 PM Opening Remarks & Welcome 4:15- 5:30 PM Keynote Panel : Are Sustainability policies good indicators of commitment of higher education institutions? 5:30 PM Light reception Agenda: 14 September 2016 WSSD-U-2016
  5. 5. Cambridge/Boston: Leveraging place
  6. 6. How can MIT be a game changing force for campus sustainability in the 21st Century? guiding question:
  7. 7. MIT Office of Sustainability
  8. 8. How can WE be a game changing force for campus sustainability in the 21st Century? guiding question:
  9. 9. Moderator: Walter Leal, Manchester Metropolitan University UK & HAW Hamburg, Germany Panelists: Nicholas Ashford, Professor of Technology and Policy, MIT Wu Jiang, Professor, Tongji University, Global University Partnership of Education for Sustainability co-chair Chris Shiel, Professor of Life and Environmental Sciences, Bournemouth University Keynote Panel 4:15-5:30 Are Sustainability Policies Good Indicators of Commitment of Higher Education Institutions? WSSD-U-2016
  10. 10. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Their effect on institutions of higher learning and where institutional changes could be made. Nicholas A. Ashford, PhD, JD Professor of Technology & Policy Director, MIT Technology and Law Program Massachusetts Institute of Technology Copyright © 2016 Nicholas A. Ashford
  11. 11. Environment Technological change & globalization Work Economy The economy provides goods and services adequate to satisfy the basic material needs of all members of society and provides abundant and equitable opportunities for the realization of human potential Livelihoods are secure and available that provide satisfying engagement in work and equitable reward for labor, permit the maintenance of a decent standard of living, and are conducted in a safe working environment Long-run flows of environmental services are provided at a level sufficient to maintain a stable ecosystem and to support human health and welfare What is the meaning of sustainable development? Copyright© 2016 Nicholas A. Ashford
  12. 12. Preliminary Observations on the Sustainability Cris • We are facing the longest recovery period of jobs/employment in modern history. Unemployment rates do not tell the whole story; wages & job growth continue to fall. • We are facing unprecedented wealth (and income) inequality. And that distortion in wealth has a profound effect on the economic & political agenda of democratic countries (Piketty; Atkinson; Stiglitz). • We are hollowing out the middle class with a divergence between the stock market and the ‘real economy’ … skill-based technological change and the spreading of earning capacity (MIT’s 2nd Machine Age) • There is great volatility in the US and global economic system. • We seem bent on believing in an economic recovery (GDP and productivity), rather than a transformation of the industrial state. • We continue to believe that increasing technological innovation is the most assured pathway to better times (contrast the 2nd Machine Age). • Global climate disruption/environmental issues present a continuing challenge. • Reform of the financial system remains illusory. • We have an unresponsive political system. Copyright© 2016 Nicholas A. Ashford
  13. 13. What is the Nature of the Current Crisis? The perfect storm: reinforcement of bad outcomes • FINANCE • WEALTH CONCENTRATION • EMPLOYMENT • CONSUMPTION • INVESTMENT AND PRODUCTION • ENVIRONMENT Copyright© 2016 Nicholas A. Ashford
  14. 14. The Nature of the Current Crisis • FINANCE: Origin - decades of the relaxation of regulatory controls - reckless provision of credit (to both producers and consumers) + issuance of dubious financial instruments - short-termism, money chasing money Aftermath: collapse of the housing and financial markets => - reluctance of lenders to lend, and … - reluctance of producers and consumers to borrow or spend in uncertain and volatile futures - This affects employment, consumption, and growth • WEALTH CONCENTRATION • EMPLOYMENT • CONSUMPTION • INVESTMENT AND PRODUCTION • ENVIRONMENT Copyright© 2016 Nicholas A. Ashford
  15. 15. What can be done about the Current Crises? (recovery or transformation?) • FINANCE (reform the financial system) – transparency, regulation, oversight, international agreements – democratize credit – public or community-based financing of sustainable growth • (the B-Corp or Benefit Corporation) • WEALTH & INCOME CONCENTRATION (redistribution; basic income guarantees) • EMPLOYMENT (shorten the workweek, maintaining income; redesign jobs) • CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION (green the economy?) • ENVIRONMENT (build a circular economy; regulation; economic instruments) • TRADE (fairer trade practices; “re-shoring”; change the trade rules; disengage from the world trade regimes? (TTIP and TPP?)
  16. 16. KEY QUESTIONS • How might the modern industrial or industrializing state be envisioned? i.e., what is the system? • How is the concern with sustainability affecting institutions of higher learning? – Engendering a focus on environmental sustainability • What is the role of those institutions in addressing the sustainability challenges? – Contribute to greening the economy through S&T – Broaden research & teaching to other sustainability goals
  17. 17. Extraction industries Manufacturing Agriculture Transportation Energy Services Housing ICT SOLUTIONS Education & Human Resource Development Industry Initiatives Government Intervention/Regulation Stakeholder Involvement Financing Sustainable Development Consumer Consumption Commercial Consumption Government Consumption SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGES Inadequate Supply of, and Access to, Essential Goods & Services Toxic Pollution Climate Disruption Resource Depletion Biodiversity/Ecosystem Integrity Environmental Injustice Employment/Purchasing Power Economic Inequity Copyright© 2016 Nicholas A. Ashford
  18. 18. Extraction industries Manufacturing Agriculture Transportation ENERGY Services Housing ICT Producer-created demand  SOLUTIONS Education& Human ResourceDevelopment Industry Initiatives Government Intervention/Regulation StakeholderInvolvement Reform the FinancialSystem Consumer Consumption Commercial Consumption Government Consumption SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGES Inadequate Supply of, and Access to, Essential Goods & Services Toxic Pollution Climate Disruption Resource Depletion Biodiversity/Ecosystem Integrity Environmental Injustice Employment/Purchasing Power Economic Inequity FINANCE  Subsidies  Credit  Copyright© 2016 Nicholas A. Ashford
  19. 19. What is involved in “greening the econom • Dematerializing, de-toxifying, and de-energizing production, products, and services (building a circular economy/moderate supply-side changes) • Moving to less environmentally-damaging energy sources (moderate supply-side changes) • Greening manufacturing and energy  green jobs? A triple dividend? (more radical supply-side changes are possible, but jobs are likely to be redistributed between sectors with no net gain in employment; a lowering of skills may be demanded, depressing wages) • Consuming less (serious demand-side changes) • Travelling less (serious demand-side changes) • Working less? (with lower wages ~ lowering demand) • Whatever the developed countries do, there is the overwhelming pressure for increased growth and consumption in the developing
  20. 20. What systemic factors contributes to unemployment and under-employment? • Technological displacement and attendant deskilling of labor, leading to decreases in wages and purchasing power • Tendency to shift from utilizing labor to utilizing physical capital and energy, driven by both costs associated with labor benefits and by volatility of the economy • Location of production/service facilities abroad (offshoring slowing/reversing now in the US = “re- shoring” but without job/wage growth) • Reluctance to expand employment in volatile timesCopyright© 2016 Nicholas A. Ashford
  21. 21. Alternative ways of increasing earning capacity and improving the environment, cont’d. • Meet essential needs of consumers in a different way (shift to product services; a shared economy?) – lowering consumption, environmental impacts and costs to consumers; and increasing wages • Encourage the production of essential goods and services and discourage others – regulate advertising; tax the “bads” • Invest in labor-intensive production and services • Adopt a four-day workweek but maintain workpay parity • Change workers into owners – thru changes in business ownership and corporate structures • By allowing them to acquire capital with the (future) earnings of capital (two-factor economics – R. Ashford) • Tax Corporations that shift production/services/ownership abroad • Educate workers/consumers for the economy of the futureCopyright© 2016 Nicholas A. Ashford
  22. 22. THE ENERGY CHALLENGE • In addition to others (Sachs 2015), the Energy Transition Commission (2016) has also warned th at meeting COP21 targets will not come close to achieving a 1.5 degree C rise to stem serious climate disruption…The COP21 commitments are unbalanced between the supply and demand levers, and are very limited in scope outside the power sector. • In addition into making technology-specific changes, changes to the international trading system needs to receive immediate and serious consideration. The EU ETC (2016, p. 9) observes that: “the shift in countries offshore a significant percentage of their domestic emissions (up to 48% according to some estimates).” • This argues not only that redesigning the WTO (and TTIP) trade rules needs to be undertaken, but also that trade policy has to be an integral and important part of the overall strategy to achieve deep decarbonization. • There is a need to recognize some myths about industrial economies (Ashford and Renda 2016)
  23. 23. innovation in products and services is essential to achieving deep decarbonization. Europe is suffering from an “innovation deficit”. • Actually, Europe may be suffering more from a diffusion and deployment deficit. Consider the wedges approach of Pacala/Socolow and Blok et al. • There are many analysts [e.g., Amory Lovins (2011) and Robert Ayres (2016)] who argue that there are many technologies already in existence which could be defused into use, but which suffer by the inadequacies of appropriate market and regulatory signals, sufficient market demand, and/or lock-in due to inappropriate policies -- and influence and agency capture by incumbent technology providers • Actually, it is system innovation that is needed, integrating changes in the activities of previously unconnected actors, some operating in different networks. Government Trusteeship for an industrial transformation is key.
  24. 24. Myth #4: Governments cannot pick winners. Winners pick governments. – The US experience with aircraft, computers, the internet, space technology, and pharmaceuticals (to name just a few examples) clearly demonstrates the power of government funding of research, e.g., see the U.S. examples of DARPA and ARPA-E. – Winners may pick governments if the incumbents dominate the policy agenda and interventions.
  25. 25. Myth #6: Regulation inhibits beneficial innovation. • The Porter Hypothesis • The MIT Hypothesis • Better Regulation is not about cutting red tape and allowing incumbents to negotiate targets.
  26. 26. Myth #7: Carbon leakage presents a practical disincentive and limits to what NATIONAL regulation can achieve in terms of decarbonization. • Carbon leakage is a BIG problem which is why multi- lateral action is needed and why revision of the world trade
  27. 27. • If we attributed to the developed countries the GHG emissions associated with producing goods and services for them by China, emissions now attributed to China would be much less and those attributed to the developing countries would be much more. In addition, China is a very inefficient producer. • Since 2005, government subsidies to assist firms in achieving compliance with environmental/global climate goals for their exports are considered “actionable – i.e., subject to border adjustments by countries receiving those exports. • India’s “buy national policy” on solar panels declared illegal by the World Trade Organization, discouraging needed infrastructure in India. • All the above contribute to carbon leakage and increases in GHG emissions. • Trade policies and trade rules must be revised.
  28. 28. THIS IS NOT (JUST) A TEXTBOOK: ASHFORD & HALL 2011 YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS

×