Institutions and Individuals

• Author: Robert N. Stavins
• Position: Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, and Director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program
• Pages: 18-18

Page 18 ❧ THE ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM Copyright © 2009, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, March/April 2009

By Robert N. Stavins

Institutions and

Individuals

What is the proper role for in-

dividuals and institutions in

addressing climate change? A natural

response is that everyone should do

their part. Let’s see what this really

means.

Decisions af‌fecting carbon dioxide

emissions, for example, are made pri-

marily by companies and consumers.

is includes decisions by f‌irms about

how to produce electricity as well as

other goods and services and decisions

by consumers regarding what to buy,

how to transport themselves, and how

to keep their homes heated, cooled,

and illuminated.

However, despite the fact that these

decisions are made by companies and

individuals, government action is key,

because climate change is an external-

ity, and it is rarely, if ever, in the self-

interest of f‌irms or individuals to take

unilateral actions. at is why the cli-

mate problem exists. Voluntary initia-

tives — 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 individu-

als in the direction of emissions reduc-

tions. Whether conventional standards

or market-based instruments are used,

meaningful government regulation is

required.

Where does this leave the role and

responsibility of individuals and in-

stitutions? Let me use as an example

my employer, a university. Recently, I

met with students advocating for a re-

duced carbon footprint for the school.

Here is what I told them.

“I was once asked by a major oil

company to advise on the design of

an internal, voluntary tradable permit

system for CO2 emissions. My re-

sponse 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 (com-

bustion of fossil fuels). If you want

to do something meaningful about

climate change, the focus should be

on the use of your products, not your

internal production process.’ (My re-

sponse would have been dif‌ferent had

they been a cement producer.) e 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 argu-

ment against govern-

ment attempts to put

in place a meaningful

climate policy.”

My view of a uni-

versity’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 trivial com-

pared with the impacts on the envi-

ronment (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 the university’s priorities and

performance in the realms of teach-

ing, 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. is is par-

ticularly true in the case of a promi-

nent university.

But my institution’s greatest op-

portunity — indeed, its greatest re-

sponsibility — with regard to address-

ing 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 footprint while

also working to increase and improve

relevant research, teaching, and out-

reach? e answer brings up a phrase

that will be familiar to readers of this

column, opportunity cost. Faculty,

staf‌f, and students all have limited

time. Giving more attention to one is-

sue inevitably means giving less time

to another.

So my advice to the

students was to advo-

cate for more faculty

appointments in the

environmental realm

and to press for more

and better courses. Af-

ter all, it was student demand at my

institution that resulted in the cre-

ation of the college’s highly successful

concentration in environmental sci-

ence and public policy.

ink about actions that can really

make a real dif‌ference, as opposed to ac-

tions that may feel good but have little

real-world impact. Climate change is

a real and pressing problem. It will be

costly to address. Strong government

actions will be required, as well as en-

lightened political leadership at the na-

tional and international levels.

Voluntary initiatives

will be insigni cant

relative to the

magnitude of the

problem

Ro ber t N . St avi ns is the Albert Pratt Profes-

sor of Business and Government at the John

F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvar d

University, and Dir ector of the Har vard En -

vironmental Economics Program. He can b e

reached at rob ert_stavins@har vard.edu.

A E P