Private Sector Initiatives to Address Climate Change

Over the past decade or more, there has been increasing attention to private-sector initiatives to address climate change, with scholarly research and considerable action being centered in business schools, particularly in the United States.  This is the focus in the latest episode of my podcast series, “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.”

I engage in conversation with Michael Toffel, Senator John Heinz Professor of Environmental Management and Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School (HBS).  We discuss the many ways in which business schools are giving much greater attention to climate change and other environmental issues, as well as how businesses and governments can and are working together to address climate change.  The podcast is produced by the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  You can listen to our complete conversation here.

Toffel, who is a Faculty Fellow of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program and hosts the Climate Rising podcast at HBS, cites several examples of climate initiatives that are bubbling up organically throughout the private sector.

“What’s very interesting are …. the movement on the finance side, where you’ve got a lot deeper pockets of capital, pools of capital that are seeking out climate solutions,” he says. “You’ve got this whole ESG [Environmental, Social, and Governance] area that’s evolved … [which is] putting new screens on the types of investments that they want to include in their portfolio. You’ve got companies making these net zero commitments, which include a combination of decarbonizing their operations and their supply chains, and then using carbon credits to offset the residual. And a bunch of commitments in that regard remains to be seen.”

Michael emphasizes that it is uncertain how much this climate talk will translate into action.

“That’s long been an interest of mine – are companies following up with action? Who is? Who isn’t? And so that continues to be an interest of mine. We will see. A lot of my research in this area has taken the form of case writing, because so much of this is so new, and we don’t have years and years of data sets to do the type of empirical work that my scholarly work tends to gravitate toward.  We’re learning in real time through cases, and then doing some empirical scholarship as well.”

Toffel cites two recent projects he’s been involved with that he is especially proud of.

“On the scholarly research side, [there] is a study that’s just coming out in AEJ Applied Micro, a leading journal or field journal … that looks at the effectiveness of U.S. OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s efforts to target companies for inspection. OSHA is dramatically underfunded in the sense that they can maybe inspect every establishment that they regulate [once] every 100 years, and so they really need to make some tough decisions about where to go,” he says.

“Traditionally, they’ve been making these decisions for a lot of their inspections, based on where the problems have arisen in the past … and we conjecture and find some evidence that if they change that [strategy by] using more modern techniques and machine learning to figure out and predict where are problems more likely to be in the future, or where might their inspections do the most good … they can really reduce injuries by the thousands, with millions of dollars of consequences of reduced injury, pain, and suffering.”

The other research he cites is a Case Study, co-written with his HBS colleagues Shirley Lu and George Serafeim, on BMW’s approach to decarbonization.

“It’s a very engineering focused company, so they have a very engineering orientation to carbon accounting, to carbon management, to reduction, and to even their publicity around all of this. And their CEO has taken a perspective that whereas other companies are having these phase out dates for the internal combustion engine … they’ve said, ‘We’re not going to make that claim because we don’t know if we can keep that promise, in part because we don’t know if the infrastructure is going to be there to power electric vehicles, and will it be electric or will it be hydrogen powered fuel cells? We’re not really sure where the technology will shake out.’ So, they’ve been reluctant … to make such promises, because they have a culture … where they [don’t] want to … make promises until they know they can keep them.”

Reflecting on his almost two decades at Harvard Business School, Toffel remarks on how far the field of environmental management has come in recent years.

“When I applied to Ph.D. programs, this topic was very fringe,” he says. “This whole thing has completely changed, where most business schools now are leaning into the idea of environment and climate in particular … and scholarship is really exploding on these topics. So, that’s been really heartening to see. In addition, students’ interest in this has really risen incredibly in the 17 years that I’ve been here. Originally, no one talked about environment. Now … students are bringing these [issues] up. They’re demanding more content.”

For this and much, much more, I encourage you to listen to this 52nd episode of the Environmental Insights series, with future episodes scheduled to drop each month.  You can find a transcript of our conversation at the website of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  Previous episodes have featured conversations with:

“Environmental Insights” is hosted on SoundCloud, and is also available on iTunes, Pocket Casts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

Share

Vision for Energy Transition

In our podcast series, “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program,” I’ve had the pleasure of engaging in conversations over the past three years with a number of truly outstanding economists who have carried out important work in the realm of environment, energy, and resource economics, and also served in important government positions, and my most recent podcast episode is no exception, because I’m joined by James Stock, the Harold Hitchings Burbank Professor of Political Economy at Harvard, where he is also Harvard’s inaugural Vice Provost for Climate and Sustainability, and the Director of the new Salata Institute for Climate and Sustainabilty.  Also, Jim served as a Member of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, where he focused on macroeconomics and energy & environmental policy.

In the podcast, we discuss the arc of Jim’s economic research, including on energy and climate change, his government service, his thoughts on the current state of climate change policy, as well as new his new role directing the Salata Institute at Harvard.  You’ll find this and much more in the latest episode of “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program,” a podcast produced by the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  I hope you will listen to our complete conversation here.

It is striking that when talking about recent developments in U.S. climate policy, particularly over the past year, Jim Stock is really quite positive.

“The nation has made huge progress over [the course of] 2022 with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act,” he said. “This is a huge piece of legislation. It’s really going to set the stage for driving substantial emission reductions, especially in the power sector. So that’s fantastic, [and] we all have to applaud that passage.”

Jim also commends the U.S. Congress for its bipartisan infrastructure bill which includes – among many other things – some $5 billion over five years to help states create a network of electric vehicle charging stations.  But even with such significant pieces of legislation, Stock acknowledges that the most optimistic projection for emission reductions in 2040 relative to 2005 is only about 40 percent.

“So, it’s not even a glass half-full situation,” Stock remarks. “We’ve done this huge amount of work and we’ve passed this really important legislation, but we’re only at 40 percent reduction. There is so much more work that needs to be done, and I think a big part of that work is actually figuring out what the right agenda is.”

Part of the agenda, Stock says, is determining what actions need to be taken at all levels of government and business to achieve meaningful progress. But the potential for significant progress is possible, he argues, because of the tremendous technological advancements in recent years.   Interestingly, Jim Stock thus explains the reliance in the Inflation Reduction Act on “carrots” (subsidies), as opposed to “sticks,” not just on the basis of political feasibility, but also on the reality of technological change.

“If you think back to 2005 … there really weren’t good alternatives to coal and natural gas in the power sector, and electric vehicles were ridiculously expensive, and we just didn’t have the technology.  Today everything is totally different, where we are looking at technologies, whether they’re light duty vehicles or solar or wind, and now increasingly batteries, even grid storage batteries, are really becoming at a much better cost point and are actually beating out their fossil fuel alternatives. So now the question is, what can we do to spur that?  At this point, subsidies can be very effective.”

I also ask Jim about his recent appointment as director of the Salata Institute, and he responds by noting that it reflects Harvard’s commitment to pursue pragmatic solutions to the climate problem and communicate them to policymakers and the general public.

“The mission of the Institute is to harness the strengths and abilities and powers of Harvard University and its scholars and students to press forward viable solutions and practical solutions in an impactful way in the real world,” he says, emphasizing that the challenge reaches across multiple disciplines. “It spans economics. It spans the sciences. It spans health and spans business, and so you need to have expertise drawing from across the different parts of the university and different fields to really be able to make progress.”

For this and much, much more, I encourage you to listen to this 45th episode of the Environmental Insights series, with future episodes scheduled to drop each month.  You can find a transcript of our conversation at the website of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  Previous episodes have featured conversations with:

“Environmental Insights” is hosted on SoundCloud, and is also available on iTunes, Pocket Casts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

Share

Leading Academic Economist Offers Optimism about Climate Change Policy

Over the past three years, I’ve had the pleasure of engaging in podcast conversations with some truly outstanding scholars who have carried out important research in the realm of environment, energy, and resource economics, and recently was no exception, when my guest was Michael Greenstone, the Milton Friedman Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago.  You can listen to our conversation in the latest episode of my podcast, “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.”  Our full conversation is here.

In our conversation, Michael Greenstone talks about his graduate work in economics at Princeton, the path that took him to faculty positions at the University of Chicago, MIT, and then back to Chicago, as well as his time in government during the Obama administration at the Council of Economic Advisers.  In the process, Michael identifies both some high points and low points of his time in government, as well as some of the changes he has seen over the past twenty years in environmental economics scholarship.

When Michael reflects on his time serving as chief economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers, he describes his work on regulatory policy, in particular trying to find a way to estimate in economic terms the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions.

“So, I had this idea, why shouldn’t the government have a coherent and uniform social cost of carbon? And I suggested it to [then Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs] Cass Sunstein at lunch one day, and we decided to set off on this journey to set a social cost of carbon for the U.S. government,” he remarks. “And we co-ran an inter-agency process and one thing led to another, and there was a U.S. government social cost of carbon at the end.”

Related to this, in recent years Michael helped launch and now co-leads the Climate Impact Lab at the University of Chicago, which is building a comprehensive body of research quantifying the impacts of climate change.

Interestingly, when I ask him to comment on the explosion of youth climate activism in recent years, although Michael voices some disappointment with young activists who have tried to turn climate change into a moral issue rather than an environmental, technological, and economic one, he notes that the energy and passion that young people have brought to the climate debate has been very effective in making others pay attention to it.

“These youth movements have been incredibly successful, in my view, in raising political consciousness in ways … that cold blooded cost benefit analysis somehow [doesn’t] seem to hit the mark. And I give them a lot of credit for that,” he says. “A second reaction is, I do not think that the right way to confront climate change is by treating it as a moral issue, or as an issue that is beyond economics. I think it’s a really interesting economic question that has all kinds of subtleties, but I do not think that the tools of cost benefit analysis and or economic analysis are inappropriate for climate change.”

Having worked extensively and intensively on climate change in both the scholarly and policy worlds, he voices considerable optimism about where we are now, and what the future is likely to bring.  He points to two trends he feels are most critical for building momentum in climate change policy debates. The first, he says, is that opportunities to leverage technology to reduce CO2 emissions are becoming more realistic as the costs of alternative energy sources continue to fall compared with the costs of fossil fuel sources of energy. The second, he says, is that people are beginning to experience in real time the impacts of climate change.

“I do think a real game changer has been that we can see the fingerprints of climate change now, in ways that we couldn’t 10 or 15 years ago,” he says. “I think the two things that we can see – the fingerprints and that it’s not as economically challenging a bar to jump over – have come together in a reinforcing way, and helped with the youth activism [by underscoring the fact that] we don’t have only infeasible responses.”

For this and much more, I hope you will listen to this 40th episode of the Environmental Insights series, with future episodes scheduled to drop each month.  You can find a transcript of our conversation at the website of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  Previous episodes have featured conversations with:

“Environmental Insights” is hosted on SoundCloud, and is also available on iTunes, Pocket Casts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

Share