My colleague and friend, Dr. Gernot Wagner, has a new book coming out, But Will the Planet Notice?: How Smart Economics Can Save the World (available in hardback and kindle editions on October 5th). The premise is that individual actions, like changing incandescent light bulbs to compact fluorescent, using groovy (yes, I said groovy) reusable grocery bags instead of plastic, and buying local food may make us feel better about our environmental impact, but actually do very little to reduce global climate change, resource use, or improve overall environmental quality. To make the “planet notice” we need systematic and collective changes in behavior.
In this class you will learn that, contrary to popular opinion, economists don’t believe unregulated markets will naturally supply this type of systemic and collective behavioral change. We also don’t put a lot of faith in the powers of moral suasion (even by the former Vice President). Instead we believe in the power of incentives—the power of the price signal. If carbon emissions are costly (through a carbon tax or from a cap-and-trade system), then goods produced using more carbon are more expense. By the law of demand, when prices rise, quantity demanded falls. So if carbon-intensive goods are more expensive, fewer of those goods will be consumed and less carbon will be emitted. Less carbon is emitted not because people care deeply about the impacts of climate change (although some may), but because they care deeply about their pocketbook. Note that unregulated markets don’t result in the correct price signals; we do need public policy to address environmental problems. We do need the big R—Regulation!
Let’s bring this discussion home to Duke. If you go to sustainability.duke.edu you will see a carbon footprint calculator. This tool asks you a series of questions about your eating habits, travel, and electricity consumption. Questions include things like: How far do you drive per trip to work? How much of your food is locally produced? Do you turn off your computer at night? These are all very reasonable questions and clearly linked to each individual’s carbon consumption. But perhaps we should also be asking: How many letters have you written your congressman demanding action on climate policy? How many community meetings have you organized to explain climate policy to your neighbors and friends? The “true believers” doing a lot won’t solve our problem. We need carbon to be priced in order to affect behavior sufficiently to reduce overall carbon emissions. How else can we “make the planet notice?”
I have lately been pondering the specific question of what Duke should do. I have been asked to serve on the Campus Sustainability Committee and have agreed. Universities are frequently leaders in sustainability efforts. But even if Duke cut carbon emissions to zero, the planet would not notice. Does this mean Duke should stop trying to lower its carbon footprint? What is the role of the university in promoting environmental change? Feel free to share your ideas for me to take to this committee.
I think one of the primary objectives that Duke should focus on in its effort to be carbon neutral is to engage in more outreach, both with other similar institutions as well as the general public. If Duke were to simply say “we’re converting our campus buses to hybrids to be more sustainable and carbon neutral,” that’s fine and dandy. But I think there should be more of an effort to explain to whoever the audience may be (which may require some work to appropriately determine) why it is that Duke wants to go carbon neutral, even without a carbon tax. The planet may not notice if Duke goes carbon neutral, but at least others can understand how and why and hopefully be motivated to pursue that themselves.
Hi, I just want to check whether I can leave a comment…
Last year in Japan, supermarkets started to charge customers with about 5 cents for one plastic bag. and finally it turned that most people (as I observed) bring their own bags while shopping and the consumption of plastic bags dropped significantly.
But there are also some voices of doubting if the money get from plastic bags can be fully invested into the conservation of environment.
Duke University is in the perfect position as a leading academic institution (and particularly, as a leading environmental program) to set the standard for greater sustainability outreach. Many schools are greening their campuses today. Warren Wilson in Asheville has gone completely carbon neutral and goes a step further by getting its students involved in green projects on campus, as a part of their ‘neutrality’. But does this reach Congress? This school has a big voice and strong relationships with other great voices, like our friends down the road. I would be interested in learning more about the Nicholas Institute’s relationship with policy makers, and how we currently manage government relations as an academic entity, to explore the possibility of getting our community and other institutions more involved in current political affairs, both at the individual and institutional level. I understand there are academic associations for purposes like this, but am not sure how politically active they are.
There are four important factors I can recall to promote low-carbon. They are fund, technique, policy and the market. I think university should seek to make contribution to creation and spread of low-carbon technique. Also, it should play the role in providing professional suggestions for policy makers so that correct and effective policy can be implemented. These are not easy.
For fund and the market, they are beyond the ability of a single university.
As it is mentioned in the blog:To make the “planet notice” we need systematic and collective changes in behavior. Duke alone definately could not change the overall situation in our planet, it’s not because Duke is too weak to spread out ideas about how to reduce our carbon footprint, the true reason is people who live with low living standard are worried about their mouth problem rather than anything else, while only a small group of people are practising greener life to save the planet, such as Duke. The proportion of those poor people is much higher than the latter one’s. At this point, rather than stop making efforts,organizations like Duke or people like Dukers should play harder to offset the negative effects brought by developing world. Every revolution of no matter thoughts or life-style will take some time and it’s also a painful process for many decision makers and political leaders.
I agree that systematic and collective changes in behavior are necessary to address the planet’s environmental problems, and such changes simply won’t happen without government regulation. Unfortunately, I don’t foresee any meaningful regulation occurring in the U.S. in the near future because there simply isn’t the political will. Although Duke’s sustainability efforts won’t directly impact climate change or resource depletion in any meaningful way, I think these efforts can have an indirect but potentially significant impact on our environment down the road. Leading universities like Duke are educating tomorrow’s leaders, and the examples that they set by emphasizing the importance of (and implementing) sustainable practices can very much influence the mindset and perspectives of the people who will be making policy decisions in the future.
The same thing of plastic bag restriction happened in China, and this regulation turned out to be very effective.
Besides specific sustainability efforts, I think academic institutions like Duke play more important roles in creating feasible and universal ways leading to sustainability – for instance, studying consumer behaviors and developing sustainability-improving senarios which cater to consumers’ needs, or providing government with the most effective taxation or regulation plans. NGOs led by environmentalists could be too idealistic, people who are struggling with life too realistic, politicians inconsistent, but academic institutions could keep acting rationally. I believe leading universities like Duke can put forward sustainability plans which will bring gradual but ultimately significant changes to the world!
I feel that Duke is in a wonderful position for the fact that it is a fairly large and well-known institution that can serve as an example of the short-term (and eventually long-term) benefits of reducing one`s carbon footprint. If there is a push for strengthening environmental legislation, there should be data to show why such a need exists, which is where Duke comes in. If Duke is able to quantify and qualify the benefits and costs of carbon reduction, legislators and other college institutions may be persuaded to act in a manner consistent with Duke University. In short, Duke should act regardless of whether or not other initially take heed because eventually Duke could bring change. Then again, if large scale change doesn`t occur and the people act in non-sustainable and destructive ways, which will inevitably lead to annihilation, Duke can at least say “It wasn`t me.”
Duke should definitely keep trying to lower its carbon food print. I don’t think that individual act cannot do big to reduce global climate change. Since the global climate is changed by billions of individuals, why can’t the individuals reduce the change? Although I agree that the process of protecting the planet is much more difficult than damaging it. Compared to many other institutes, Duke is much more mature in environmental programs. So Duke should develop to a higher stage and educate more future leaders and policy makers who will play an important role in this field. Besides, what Duke has done can be noticed by other institutes. They will learn from Duke and others will learn from them. Those good practices will be spread all over the world. It is quite probable that when some Chinese institutes hear what duke has done, they will learn and make some improvements. No matter whether it is too idealistic, I think Duke should give it a try.
Although ultimately the activities and decisions of one university will have a negligible impact on the overall health of the planet, Duke can and should serve as an example and “spokes-institution” for causes that the student body is passionate about. Since there are already a variety of academic programs and student groups focused on the environment, it stands to reason that Duke as a whole would be a good place to start a carbon neutral initiative. A university with so much infrastructure like Duke’s can also act as a microcosm of the “real world”, and methods and findings from the proposed carbon-neutral initiative on campus might be able to be scaled up to provide solutions for larger communities. In that respect, I think the idea of Duke aiming for a carbon-neutral standard is a worthy-endeavor.
In addition, even though the ultimate goal of the environmental movement is to create a healthier planet, I think there is still something to be said for “thinking globally and acting locally”. As the Dean talked about in his convocation speech, it is sometimes easy to get overwhelmed with negativity when we are constantly bombarded with stories of oil-slicked birds and rising temperatures. No one person or organization can solve every environmental problem, but working on a local scale to realize actual, measurable goals, one community at a time, may eventually have a greater effect than previously believed. Duke can be this kind of problem-solver on a local level, and hopefully inspire other institutions and communities to follow their lead to create a regional, then hopefully national and even international, level of success.
It is not surprising to pay for plastic shopping bags and for garbage bags in Korea. It sounds strange to buy plastic bags when you need to put your shopping items and you throw garbage and wastes. The government has regulated that the markets and shopping centers should give the plastic bags with the price and special bags for wastes which are controlled by local government. Actually it had serious demonstration and resistance at the beginning because we generally got bags for shopping items for free and used those plastic bags to throw wastes. Thus to purchase the bags for putting items and for wastes could not be understandable. Moreover the main concern was purchasing bags for wastes would increase a burden on household budget. However, since the regulation has been implanted from 1995, it turns out that purchasing plastic bags for shopping and waste contributes to reduce significantly amount of usage of plastic bags and also amount of wastes. People tried to get their own bags for shopping and to reduce amount of wastes in order to save money for purchasing garbage bags. Furthermore, they actively participated in recycling. My apartment in Korea set a day for recycling items such as paper, can, glass and the management office sells them and distributes revenues from recycling to each tenants. Now we do not have resistance to purchase bags for shopping and for throwing garbage but proud that we initiate environmental protection at home.
In the article,questions include things like: How far do you drive per trip to work? How much of your food is locally produced? Do you turn off your computer at night? really makes me think a lot.What we need to do to protect our environment is the action in daily life.Maybe we should control the temperature of air conditional as one step since set the temprature too low cost a lot of energy,
I’m curious to know more about the numbers behind the statement that “even if Duke cut carbon emissions to zero, the planet would not notice.” Do the people on the sustainability team view their work only as a way to set a good example for others to follow, with the hope that at some point, critical mass will be achieved?
I am also checking that.
It works! I’ll leave a real comment some other time.
I feel that Duke is just like a small society, including people, regulations, interactions and ethics, like a experiment prototype of the real world. If Duke could cut off carbon emissions to zero with an effective and accepted way both environmental-friendly and economical-friendly, I think it will be a great sample for reference.
I really appreciate the idea that systematic and collective changes in behavior are in great need to make the planet notice. But could the changes caused by price signal be considered as systematic and collective? Although people may start paying attention to individual carbon consumption, they are actually driven by objective economic interests instead of subjective consciousness. There might be situations that people try to reduce payment on carbon consumption by acting in other ways that actually cause more carbon emission. For example, if the electricity price increases because of carbon price added, a person living near Duke Forest may cook meals by branches picked up from the forest instead of using electric stove. Though the case is far too extreme, it does reflect some potential problems if charging for carbon emission simply. In my opinion, long-term education and governmental policy are still needed to make the planet notice. And Duke can contribute on both aspects for systematic and collective changes in behavior emerging in the future.
While Duke itself does not have the ability to significantly effect global carbon emissions, even if carbon neutrality is achieved, Duke does have the ability to connect, train, and facilitate meaningful acts towards sustainability. Through organizations like the Campus Sustainability Committee, Duke can bring together the many different segments of a large, prestigious university to work towards real sustainability. These people from differing segments, including business, public policy, medicine, environment, education, and more, will then be much more equipped to change government policy through their varied fields. I believe these future change agents are crucial to promoting environmental change and can be more influential than any one university.
whether it works?
I agree that personal awareness or moral suasion of individual or organization are not powerful enough to make changes that the planet will notice, systematic and collective behavior are needed to improve the situation.
There are four aspects that I think Duke can be engaged in to make changes. First, is to reduce the carbon emission of campus. Second, to influence the community. Third, as a leading university, Duke should have the ability to change and improve the environmental policy through its various academic researches or organizations like Campus Sustainability Committee and Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. Last, to train the future environmental leaders.
As a leading university in the United States and the world, Duke has a unique responsibility to prove to other institutions and people around the globe that carbon neutrality is not only possible but very achievable. If Duke can achieve carbon neutrality by the middle of the next decade as planned, it will be far ahead of many schools in the US. While it is true that it will not make a difference in lowering the GHG in the atmosphere, etc, it is the example that matters. If Duke can do it and continue to prosper as an institution, one would assume that others would do it as well. If all universities in the US (or even the world!) achieved carbon neutrality, it would indeed make a very tiny impact. It would then influence all major institutions (corporations, hospitals, governmental offices) to do the same.
Universities are at the forefront of changing perceptions. If they give up, there is little hope for progress to be made in the world. Duke should not only attempt to achieve carbon neutrality, it should also do its best to educate all its students (not just the Nicholas School students) to live more sustainable lifestyles. If Duke can successfully educate and influence its thousands of students, they will go into the world and influence ten more people, companies, etc. This is how change is made.
Testing
Duke is in a great position to lead by example, to push others in the correct direction Duke must first lead the way. I also do not agree that our small efforts do not make a difference. To me it is just like voting. Does any one individual vote matter in a presidential election? No, not in any recent history, but if everyone just looked at it that way and no one voted what would happen?
Although markets may not solve every issue by any means regulation for regulation sake is also of little to no help. So uninformed people calling representatives will likely just confuse the problem. Many politicians have long been in bed with many corporations so these regulations that have such great intentions end up being so corrupt they do more harm than good. This is why I think Duke is in such a great position. If they lead the way on these initiatives they can find out what really works and what doesn’t. If we can then educate others about this then people can more knowledgeably demand the correct practices and initiatives either from business or from government regulation.
Sustainability has to start somewhere and it might as well be at one of the world’s top universities. Duke should take pride in cutting emissions because they are setting an example for the rest of the world. I agree that if Duke cut their emissions to zero it would have the same effect as taking one pixel out of a television. However, as more and more institutions and countries cut emissions the image (carbon) would be phased out.
The question is not how can Duke start this trend, but what type of system should be installed to ensure carbon emissions are regulated. Regulation or some sort of standardization of a carbon market is needed to incentivize the big players (automobile makers, oil producers, etc) to cut and store their emissions. This is where Duke can step in. Duke should leverage their resources in the business, engineering, public policy, and environmental schools. Each school has a set of skills that can promote environmental change. The business school and the engineering school can work together to develop and promote cheaper and cleaner methods of emissions abatement for various companies. The public policy school can run continuous memos and letters to the editors in newspapers. The public policy part will be crucial because many of the larger companies have lobbyist against changing the status quo. Duke environmental school can act as a consultant to the other three schools to make sure their facts are correct and the products being developed will be effective.
I agree that raising notice in daily life by moral suasion is a good way but
it is much more powerful to establish a carbon-price system in which carbon emssions are charged. However, the problem in my mind is :
“how to calculate the price of each unit of carbon emission???”.
Shall we treat the price as an opportunity cost? If so, what do we gain by reducing carbon emission?
We all know it is a better environment.
But how much is a better envrionment? Does the envrionment have the same price in Durham as that in DC?Or US the same as China? What if some countries say we are developing and we care less about it?
Here we come to the problem:
A systematic and collective change need a uniform object. But this planet is veeeeeeeeery complex. As many my Chinese fellows mentioned charging the plastic bags has made a big difference. I think it is partly because the citizens do not have enough power to argue about this. It sounds like an order to them. However, in the industrial level, things may not be so easy because corporations have more political power to argue “why” and “how much”. This recalled me of the faliure of 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit. I hope I can find the answer in the book.
For DUKE, my opinion is that we just need to do our best to act environmental-friendly , economically and comfortable. Only in that way can we be an good example. Other communities will never notice if being green is expensive or troublesome.
I also sit on the Campus Sustainability Committee as a graduate student representative and have done so for over a year now. Welcome! I look forward to your thoughts, Dr. Bennear, on current and future paths the University might pursue to reach its carbon neutrality goals.
(If others are interested in getting involved please let me know! GPSC can seat representatives on all of the subcommittees of the CSC as well: transportation, education, offsets, communication and energy)
In addition, I write a column on just this subject for the student news paper The Chronicle. The column tag line is “Green Devil” — there’s a column in today’s paper in fact! I also archive all of my columns on a blog that can be found at dukegreendevil.wordpress.com, so feel free, all, to check them out :). (Yes, it would appear I’m being that shameless self promoting commentator!)
But in actuality, my involvement in the University Committees and my work on my column are the very reason I am in this class. To learn more about the economic theory behind some ideas I have confronted in just this context.
Regarding the impact Duke as a University vs. the Individual… My understanding goes something like this: Duke has two sides, a physical side (buildings, buses, etc.) and a transient side (people). This is true collectively as well. Both have a role to play. If Facilities feels they are doing everything that can be done to optimize the impact of the physical plant (building efficient buildings, optimizing the output of collectively provided resources like steam and hot water — which they’ve done) then the next place to look for improvement is on the transient side, to the people. If the right incentives are provided to every individual on campus to ride the bus and not drive to work by themselves (go pass), fewer people will drive and the more efficient system will become more prominent — the total impact of the campus will go down. There are other examples.
Now, Duke as a whole is also part of a market, and that market is higher education. So beyond what you do to help Duke, what Duke is doing is also theoretically changing their position in the market — universities get ranked, students chose them, etc. A recent survey (cited in yesterday’s TarHeeler, because UNC is also interested in attracting the best and brightest) indicated that some 67 percent of prospective students consider sustainability when choosing a school. Did You? This is collective individual demand changing a priority for this and other schools.
So that’s one way the school participates in a marketplace, attracting students. There is another, way as well, arguably more on point, and that is the following: if all the universities and institutions of higher education in the country are all playing this game of getting more and more efficient, regardless of why, then you have a collection of several hundred small cities essentially (think of how big Duke is, including the hospital which indirectly benefits from University side policy and action on this front) and collectively they are arguably enough to make a measurable impact.
Markets often need drivers to change. Different information, new priorities, whatever it is. Duke is already responding to the demand, but they also have a role, and arguably a role they can improve, to also be an actor on the supply side. Duke is a hospital, so what they learn there can impact other hospitals. Duke is a university and so can contribute to the dialogue with other schools. Duke is a huge conglomerate institution and can learn from the organizational aspects as well. So, learning from all sides. And, as an institution of higher education, publish, publish, publish, and change the world. That’s how that works right?
So essentially what I’ve outlined is also the argument put forth by Mr. Chruch.
Further, the University will never achieve zero carbon emissions on it’s physical plant, it will need and is working to develop Offsets to achieve that goal. Rather than take up more space going into that, maybe that’s an economic concept we can get into more in class, because I understand it on some level, but really don’t on another.
What happens when professors are not encouraged to take what they learn and directly advise policy makers say, or local governments? Maybe because it undermines their impartiality as researchers or something…
One answer might be the Nicholas Institute, working to translate research into policy solutions. But what happens when that intermediary doesn’t exist?
This is just a test to see if it works well, I have more to comment pasted later in the day
I think Universities like Duke could play an important role in leading the transformation to a sustainable future. First of all, Duke’s sustainability efforts are not limited to the campus; it could lead systematic changes in local area. Such changes will be achievable and cost- effective, thus it might be a model for other areas, and will cause increasing influence in the knock-on effect. Secondly, Duke University could be a junction of local business, environmental NGOs and government. We will be able to put together resources and efforts of different organizations, and view the whole picture, so it is more possible that we come up with a practical and efficient solution to reduce local carbon emissions. Last but not least, Duke University has so many talents in its undergraduate and graduate school. What’s happening here will affect students’ behavior, and even have long-term effects on their thoughts. Tomorrow they will become leaders in business and political, they will become lawyers and environmentalists. Then they will have the power to influence more people, and drew attention of the nation and the world.
We must take action to reduce carbon emissions, and if it has to be started somewhere, I think Duke is a good choice.
I do agree. I do believe in “the power of incentives—the power of the price signal”. I do also agree that individual action does little, as David J.C. MacKay, professor of natural philosophy at the University of Cambridge, puts it: “if everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little”.
Does that mean we should do nothing? Hardly, it rather means we should do a bit, in a collective manner, at places like Duke University. Why bother? Because easily a large array of things that have an impact can be achieved Duke University – for its own benefit.
Hence, why not incentivizing on a small scale on campus? Intuitively, after a first week at Duke I could think of several ways to use real (price) incentives, among them:
– Reward the use of reusable dishes and cutlery in cafeterias (price plastics). For now, even if you order “for here”, meals are packed as if they were sent overseas. Real dishes are also much nicer and likely to be cheaper in the long-run.
– Moreover, incentivize the use of reusable coffee mugs with price mechanisms: coffee in reusable mugs becomes cheaper than in paper cups, if you bring your own in your most stylish (“to go”) mug the price is further reduced.
– Implement ‘green zones’ on campus for vehicles. Not in the sense of (green) parking zones in the woods as it done now, but in the sense of that parking (and streets) closer to campus can only be accessed by more eco-efficient cars. A traffic-light sticker system does a great job categorizing the efficiency of cars – issued smoothly with the parking card.
– As Liz suggested, promote the Go Pass: issue it with student ID-cards.
– Have bicycle available at rental stations all over campus. The check-in and check-out of bicycles is administered via the ID-cards. This gives students more flexibility getting around on campus. For example, when going from East to West one may prefer cycling over going by bus in order to be able to quickly stop by the library.
– Heat air-condition up a little – one degree? Lectures are no competition in bearing the cold in shorts and jandals.
– Raise awareness of environmental concerns among students and promote the measures aforementioned. For example during undergraduate studies we produced a short film with such objective which was later shown on screens on campus (subtitled). It became slightly too long and besides is in a strange foreign language but if you fancy getting an idea youtube ‘Die Beziehungsklimaretter’.
By implementing these easy-to-be achieved measures, first of all we all at Duke will notice. Then other universities and our surroundings may notice. And, perhaps, one day our planet will notice, too. A little.
Many of your suggestions have been implemented on campus or someone/group has tried to implement on campus (although it may be time for a new group to try or for an iteration on the current iteration to take place…
For instance:
-> Reusable dishes — there is a reusable “to go” container program in place in the large central campus eateries… not all eateries have the option, but they are also independently owned and operated… go ask your eatery how you can help them participate!
-> BYOCoffee Mug discounts — has also been suggested… again, independent owner/operator system means each eatery gets to choose to participate or implement program… some incentives exist in contracting, however public demand may again be a good way to see a change.
-> There are carpool zones in several of the parkinglots on campus like Circuit (nearest lot to LSRC) — cars with carpool permits can park closer… not sure if there is sufficient allocation for current demand of carpoolers… if you want to get involved join the CSC Transportation Subcommittee!
-> Go Pass is new! Get one. Use it. If you have one, I want to hear about your experience so I can write about it!
-> Bicycle rental stations across campus were considered when the Duke Bikes program was initiated. A survey of other campuses with similar programs revealed a disturbing problem, the equity of demand was nonuniform, so all the bikes would end up at the bottom of the hill (as an example). A plan to open a second outpost location for bike check-out on East Campus is under consideration. In the meantime, Brian Williams, Parking and Transportation’s Alternative Transportation Director has been surveying, mapping and adding bike racks all over campus! Check out the –> Bikeduke.com Facilities completed a temperature change policy in all buildings on campus over the course of last year. More than one degree! And has seen improvement in expenditures as a result. Changing the policy, however does not prevent people from plugging in an electric heater under their desks… = unintended consequences.
–> There is always more room for raised awareness. And, while there has been a significant improvement in the communication of efforts across campus, obvious challenges exist — like student turnover!
Ahh formatting.
Regarding bikes: the bikeduke.com website has lots of information about how to commute by bike, where to park, shower, and links to other local resources. In addition, the idea is to create a community of bike commuters… I encourage you to check it out!
Testing to see if this works 🙂
As sources of education and enlightenment, universities have the obligation to help lead the way to a sustainable future. If Duke creates an effective model of sustainability and carbon neutrality, others will notice and follow Duke’s lead. One of the challenges in becoming sustainable is not making a huge sacrifice to do so. If sustainability measures are also financially viable, more universities and organizations will be able to replicate Duke’s successes. Some universities have started green revolving funds (http://www.greeningthebottomline.org/) to help finance investments that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Universities have primarily used these funds to finance the capital costs of energy efficiency improvements. Duke’s Campus Sustainability Committee may wish to consider starting a fund like this.
I’m actually a little surprised to see Duke is not included in the report. Because there are rolling reporting deadlines, this could simply be a result of when the study authors chose to identify their sample, or it could be the way in which Sustainable Duke made its reporting.
Either way, I would argue that Duke does in fact have a Type 2. Innovation and Engagement fund in place, as described in the report. It’s called the Green Grant Fund and anyone can apply to fund programming, projects and the like that help to achieve the University’s stated objectives. More information can be found on the Sustainable Duke website: http://sustainability.duke.edu/campus_initiatives/greengrant/index.html
While it’s not clear to me if the investments to date have been formalized as a GRF, the objectives of the Type 1. Efficiency Funds are articulated by the CSC Energy Committee and Facilities when projects are considered and ranked for investment. For example, the ROI and funding questions are why you don’t see solar panels all over campus as the tax credits that incentivize such installations for businesses, do not count for much at a tax exempt institution and making that investment worthwhile is still a work in progress.
On the other hand, the idea that such a funding model provides additional insight and particularly transparency to the process of achieving sustainability goals is appealing and arguably warranted here at Duke.
You’ve called us out for not calling you out on this post. I disagree. You posed two arguments. One regarding regulation, and one regarding individual action v. market forces (and what Duke can do). I think we’ve argued the case that both individual and market action can have an impact. (In fact I disagree on a fundamental level with your cited author that individual action is irrelevant — without it you don’t get the collective action that swings markets. But maybe his argument is more complex.)
On regulation: In the absence of current regulation, institutional and business actors are actively making investments and changes to their operations. Granted in many cases these changes are being made because of the perceived or formerly perceived imminence of regulation. However, businesses and Duke specifically, are also seeing and helping themselves justify these investments through tangential and/or direct benefit — reduced cost of operations and improved image particularly. These are strong business (market) cases.
With Duke as a case study, in the Climate Action Plan (CAP), the guiding document for Duke’s action on carbon neutrality, the imminence of regulation is specifically assumed. The fact that regulation has not materialized to date does not mean it will not, or should not in the future. In which case, the projections and costs of the University’s stated objectives may become more clear and a timeline outside of the self-imposed 2024 neutrality date more important. In the meantime, there is also an argument to be made that there is added incentive in early action, largely resulting in the ability to drive and shape the form, and level of future regulation.
Eventually, the argument gets articulated as follows.
In an interestingly relevant if slightly tangential article in the NYTimes discussing the impact of jobs v. regulation (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/business/economy/a-debate-arises-on-job-creation-vs-environmental-regulation.html?_r=1&hp) — on the second page — a business executive from a cement plant is quoted saying the following: “we agree that we need to protect the environment and we need regulations in place to make sure that we all do it right.”
This is an argument that has been articulated repeatedly by business executives, governments, neighbors, in a variety of contexts, not least of which in the context of climate change. It’s not that individual actors don’t want to change or do what is right, but everyone wants to be doing it on a level playing field with the competition, hence, regulation — a means of adjusting the incentives to shift markets.
(not sure how to leave this as a separate comment)
A follow up to the few comments addressing sustainability efforts on campus… A lot of college and university presidents have signed onto the University Presidents Climate Commitment. I think that has been the impetus which has allowed so many schools to invest in sustainability coordinators, build green dormitories and increase classes in the realm of environmental studies. My question also follows along with yours- exactly how do policy makers get involved? How do efforts at an academic institution tie into community and regional efforts? What more could be done to improve relationships? Have any studies been done examining this?
I felt the same way! I can’t believe that I didn’t know immediately how many miles I drive from my home to work. It definitely made me think too and that’s what is so good about the article- it wasn’t just passive- you don’t just read it and then you’re done. I thought about it for the next few days after I read it.
I think the point is people can use fewer plastic bags. It would be better if the money got from that can be actually used on environment. And I realized that overuse of plastic bags are much more serious in US than in China.
I agree with many of the previous comments that state that Duke can and should be seen as a role model, working towards lowering its carbon footprint and environmental impact, but the issue does require that someone [students, student leaders, faculty, staff] go further than just using reusable coffee mugs or carpooling. Someone needs to let the government know – on any level – what is being done, why it is important to us, why it is important to them, and how other people and instutions can do the same. We are the future leaders of this country, as well as other countries around the world, and have a responsibility to use the knowledge that we gain here to cause positive changes in our world.
If Duke cut carbon emissions, would the planet notice? Maybe not. But if Duke cuts carbon emissions, maybe NC State and other neighboring instututions would notice, and cause a chain effect of powerful instutions making a difference. And that would be noticed.
Although you make a good point that Duke’s efforts to abate carbon emissions would be of little benefit to the planet in absence of government regulation incentivising others to do the same, I don’t think that is an effective argument for reversing Duke’s policy. For one, research and educational institutions such as Duke serve as a testing ground for policies that may achieve societal goals (such as GHG abatement), and as a model for may be practical on a larger-scale — be it regional, state-wide and national. Related to this is the fact that much of the primary research into the science of environmental problems and the policy solutions to fix them is being done at Duke, so it is practical that nascent policy tools such as sustainability or carbon zero goals would begin here before being implemented on a broader scale. All of this is to say that an institution such as Duke needs to put its money where its mouth is, or else how can it be expected that others will do the same?
Getting to the larger question of how the well-meaning activity of a few institutions can affect global environmental health, you need to approach the issue from the political angle. Unfortunately in the U.S., this increasingly means gaining political capital through cash contributions to candidates, political parties, etc. Although I’m unsure about what the University’s policy is with political activism, I am sure that they likely engage in political activism to some degree with regards to federal provision of student loans, med school funding, and other things which affect their bottom line. Why not add environmental activism to the list of things that they throw lobbying dollars behind? Again, it comes down to putting their money where their mouth is, and in the long run, environmental issues may very well negatively affect the University’s bottom line.
Students too can play a part in getting politically involved, funding environmental causes and the like…it’s just their pockets may not be quite as deep.
According to the Clean Air Council, doubling the national recycling rate could create 1 million new green jobs (http://www.cleanair.org/Waste/wasteFacts.html). The incentive of looking at waste as a commodity and less as needless debris could reinvent the way we deal with one of our greatest and growing environmental challenges. Not to mention, if an industry sells 75% or more of their waste for recyclable use, they are exempt from waste laws instilled by RCRA.
Economic incentives can cause large movements and help change our societal vantage point. We need to look at production and the life-cycle analysis of the products we produce. My hope is that we can link economic incentives to natural resources (such as clean air and water) and not continue to overlook it as a public good.
Duke Unversity is an innovative and cutting-edge institution and should embrace its role and its challenge to lower its carbon footprint. This university has the ability to make “Going Green” on a college campus a trend. Duke needs to blaze the trail for other universities to follow – systematically defining what programs and incentives work for a student body. Analyzing the impact of different styles of campus dining, energy costs of air-conditioning and heating for school buildings, and updating technology around campus are just a few ways that this campus can educate and can improve.
I agree with the beginning claim of this article, that using reusable plastic bags, CFLs, and all kinds of those green products is probably just making people feel better about themselves. Well, maybe it helps the environment a little bit, but not that much. For example, energy efficiency – I’ve been hearing about this all the time, but does increasing energy efficiency really contribute to mitigating climate change, or reducing CO2 emission? Not necessarily. If I have a car with an MPG of 18, it will cost me about $7 to see my friend in Raleigh, and I am only willing to pay $7 a week to see this friend. Now they increased the efficiency of my car to 36 MPG, and it only costs me about $3.5 to see my friend in Raleigh. Am I going to visit just once a week? No! I am going to visit twice a week, which means that I am spending about the same amount of gas, and emitting the same amount of CO2! So, energy efficiency is good, but it doesn’t necessarily help to reduce energy consumption. Using CFL instead of incandescent light is good, but producing CFL costs more energy. Biofuel, good, but the energy input might be more than the output (still controversial).
I also agree that pricing carbon would help to reduce emissions. Actually, increasing any energy price and tax will help to reduce energy usage, but it is also hard to find a balance (economic equilibrium).
Even though Duke is not making much contribution to the climate change or any other global issues, I still think what Duke is doing is great. It’s hard to assess the value of sustainability education. Duke is trying to provide an atmosphere where people think about their environmental impacts, and it will be beneficial in the future when the idea is brought out of the university to the society. And I think this is the role and responsibility of universities.