_ The Zero Emissions Strategy Conference
_ The Zero Emissions Strategy Conference
Contributed by Robert Ayres, Sandoz Professor of Management and the Environment, INSEAD
For the Zero Emissions Targeting Conference, The Commons, 6 August 1997.(This paper is usefully read in tandem with the Introduction to the Conference and behind that the three working papers which have been placed by the author in the Conference Electronic Library, all of which set out the scope and objectives of the virtual conference in some detail.)
Page Contents:
_Original Letter of Invitation (A August)
Dear Colleagues,
Herewith I invite you to join a one month experimental "virtual conference" on the World Wide Web. The conference is being sponsored in part by the United Nations University in Tokyo (UNU) and partly by the French Ministère de l'Environnement.
The conference is being hosted and co-organized by Eric Britton, Managing Director of EcoPlan International, a policy consultancy here in Paris with a long interest in problems of technology, economy and society. EcoPlan has in the last years emerged as one of the pioneers in applying advanced multi-media technology to the exchange of ideas, as you will see if you participate in this venture with us.
The UNU, specifically its Institute for Advanced Study (lAS), has two relevant concerns. One is the specific subject matter selected for this month's conference, namely the future direction of it's Zero Emissions Research initiative (ZERI). The other is its long term project to develop a worldwide "Virtual University", including both technical aspects of interaction via Internet, and curriculum. The Ministère de l'Environnement has also contributed via a contract with the Center for Management of Environmental Resources (CMER) at INSEAD, for purposes of developing scientific support for a project we have called "The Green Challenge".
So much for the background. We have two specific objectives for our one-month virtual conference, a subject and an object. They are equally important. The subject is the future direction of ZERI and, incidentally, of "the green challenge". More on this below. The object is to test this new approach to what my colleague Eric Britton calls "knowledge and consensus building", via quite a range of technologies and operational procedures, of which the WWW site for this conference is only one. In the month ahead we are hoping to "get our feet wet" in the use of this mode of interaction for serious intellectual purposes. And we want to get your reactions, both to the subject and to the object.
The Zero Emissions Research initiative (ZERI) of UNU began three years ago. It was primarily the brainchild of one very dedicated individual, Gunter Pauli. It has attracted attention around the world, and has been responsible for several very interesting projects. More recently the ZERI activities have been developed in a fully independent parallel initiative under his guidance from Geneva on a more entrepreneurial basis. (You will find a convenient direct link to the ZERI Geneva site in our conference homepage.) Meanwhile UNU/lAS is exploring future directions for this research.
We are hoping that a viable research program will emerge from all this. We seek advice. Very specifically, we are looking for good ideas for case studies, and, not incidentally, qualified people to undertake them. You should read the materials I have put into our conference library to get a better notion of what we might mean by a case study. Be warned that ideas of the kind we seek cannot be regarded as private property. We will respect and acknowledge authorship, but many ideas have a lot of intellectual parents. Enough said on that.
A small but vital further point: we hope that a funded research program will emerge. But none of those involved are as yet in a position to discuss potential sources or allocations of funding at this stage, certainly not "on the air". People who do research for a living know that funding only follows good research proposals. It does not precede them. I won't say much more about the subject matter here. We are providing ample background material (on the Website) that will introduce you to the ideas involved.
I look forward to hearing from you and to our successful collaboration on this important challenge. It is, of course, only a point of departure.
Sincerely,
Robert U. Ayres
P.S. As you will see when you visit our Website, one of the centerpieces of the conference is a series of I hope illuminating and provocative thinkpieces appearing under this rubric, The Podium, which are intended both to inform and to stimulate discussions and feedback. As host and moderator of the conference, I shall be writing several of these myself, but I wondered if you might either be interested or have a candidate whom you think we should approach. If this thing is going to succeed, it will be as a result of a variety of perspectives and views being aired and reacted to by knowledgeable participants. Kind thanks for letting us know.
Monday, 11 Aug 1997
Professor Robert Ayres, Zero Emissions Strategies Conference Moderator
robert.ayres@the-commons.orgDear Mr. Ayres,
I have been following with some interest the evolution of the web-based zero-emissions conference. However, after reading through the description of the project, I have some questions regarding the ultimate objective of this interesting endeavor.
1. What specifically are the differences, if any, between the approach which you appear to be setting out in this conference and for the UNU's future efforts under this heading, and that of the original ZERI program as set out by Gunter Pauli in his presentation to the meeting. Is yours primarily a pure research effort, and theirs more of an demonstration program? Will they be run as parallel tracks, or will one take on a lead role with the other to follow.Finally, as you know, we have been working over the past 4 years with an international scientific group here at the OECD's Environment Directorate to make some useful progress on the topic of "Environmentally Sustainable Transportation". Would you like us to provide some background materials in the conference library? We might also think of some useful cross-links. I look forward to hearing from you on these several points.2. It strikes me as an interesting idea in principle to build up a series of "third generation" case studies based on actual or planned projects in industry or in other operational settings? But once you have them, what precisely do you intend to do with them? Will you, for example , use them only as illustrations and examples or will you seek to compare them and draw some wider conclusions. If so, how will you aggregate them?
3. On the same matter -- it might be useful to see some of these case studies on the web site so that visitors might have a better idea of their potential.
Cordially, Philippe LeRouic Crist, Consultant to the OECD Environment Directorate, Paris
Philippe LeRouic Crist, (OECD):
From: Robert Ayres
Date: 8/12/97, 12:08 AM
Nice to hear from you! I'm going to avoid answering your first question in full, because the decision will not be mine and the answer depends in part on what we learn from this conference. It seems safe to say, however, that my approach is probably more research oriented than Gunter's.To answer your second question, yes, I would seek to draw wider conclusions. Our idea is to subject each case to several generalizability tests
- (1) How applicable is it in other locations?
- (2) How does it scale? (Do the economics look as good, or better, on a large scale?
- (3) Does it (i.e. the generic version) offer sufficient economic benefits in the short term to justify the expectation that it would penetrate the relevant markets without government assistance? Or would subsidies be required?
As to your third point, my papers (see library) do describe some of the possible cases, but the point of this conference is that we don't have nearly enough. We are seeking candidates. If you (or anybody else out there) have ideas, please feel free to put them into play!
Tuesday, August 12, 1997
To: robert.ayres@the-commons.org, eric.britton@the-commons.org
From: Nathan Keyfitz, Harvard University
Many thanks for your invitational letter, that raises a fundamental question when you say that we need "to think of ways to "restructure" the global economy such that the incentives facing CEOs and Prime Ministers are consistent with the requirements of global eco-sustainability."
Plainly in the long run everyone has an incentive to make their economic actions consistent with global sustainability. No one wants to live in a world as desolate as the Sahel, or Coney Island after a hectic Sunday of picnicking, or a polluted, fishless ocean.. If the long-term rate of interest was zero and there were no externalities they would act on this and there would be no need for exhortation.
But when the long-term rate is 7 percent (I round up the Economist’s 6.5 percent for convenience in calculation) then money doubles in 10 years, multiplies 32-fold in 50 years, a million-fold in 100 years. So should the owner of this hardwood forest replant after cutting—if it will take the new forest 10 years to mature? Yes—the loan he takes out will undoubtedly be repayable with the sale of the wood. If the forest takes 100 years—impossible to repay the replanting loan.
If there is prosperity there will be more alternative investments, and the forest is even less likely to be economically replantable. This factor will be superimposed on another: in good times there is more need for raw materials AND it is more expensive to borrow money, so your goal will be more elusive than ever.
Where the demographer comes into this is that in the meantime the population is growing, so the land under the forest comes to have alternative uses, and that adds to the (opportunity) cost of keeping it undeveloped. I am not sure that anyone has realistically modeled numerically how population worsens situations that are already pressure from discount rates and externalities.
The more I think about the present configuration the less capable I feel of thinking up ways of changing motivation in the desirable direction that you propose. Unless in the name of the community of future generations payment is made by this generation to change the incentives for CEO’s. We would have to put across to accountants everywhere that practically all productions involves some costs not covered, so charges should be made for global warming, for exhaustion of oil, for the finite life of anti-biotics as they develop resistance.
Presumably you are hoping someone will come up with a less distorting method than simply offering money, that will have to be collected by directly or indirectly taxing production.
But I had better stop telling you things that you already know better than I do, and wish you luck in the organization of your innovative conference.
Nathan
Nathan Keyfitz, 1580 Massachusetts Ave. #7C, Cambridge, MA 02138-2928 Tel 617 491-2845 fax 617 491-7396 e-mail keyfitz@aol.com
Office: Dept. of Sociology, Wm. James Hall, Harvard University
To: Nathan Keyfitz
August 14 1997
I realize that the subject of our virtual conference isn't exactly your area of expertise. On the other hand, as a population expert, your area is closer than it might seem at first glance.The sad truth is that very few people have given any serious thought to a very fundamental question: How to have economic growth without increasing the load of environmental pollution that necessarily accompanies population growth, mass production and mass consumption of materials-intensive "goods". What we need to think about is how to get firms to see that even if they become very efficient at converting raw materials into products, their activities -- in the aggregate -- can still lead to planetary destruction.
From a slightly different perspective, we need to think of ways to "restructure" the global economy such that the incentives facing CEOs and Prime Ministers are consistent with the requirements of global eco-sustainability.
Back to top
The subject matter of this conference seems to be open. I am wondering if it is appropriate to submit a paper concerning a hydropower energy conversion scheme. Our technology is novel and does not use dams. Both the high costs of the dams and the environmental pitfalls of dams can be avoided. Today I sent an E-mail to register. Dan Price, Denver, Colorado USA.
Back to top
To: Dan Price
From: Robert Ayres
Date: 8/8/97
Thanks for your inquiry. Eric has already replied, I see, but to answer your first question specifically -- and you may not be the only one to ask -- no formal registration is required. All you need do is show up at the Website.Your second question concerns the relevance of your work on innovative dam-free hydropower. I must admit, I would not have thought of something like that as a possible candidate case study, but on second thought that is only because I wouldn't have thought of such a possibility. I was thinking more in terms of wrinkles on existing technologies. But actually, the more I reflect, the more it seems to me that we should take a look at your ideas. So, if you are willing to expose them to comment, please feel free to do so. I would only suggest that you be careful not to prematurely publish anything that might be patentable.
Subject to that constraint, I must admit I am very curious about your scheme. Tell us what you can about your ideas. But don't go on at length about why they haven't attracted attention thus far. All truly innovative ideas run into the same sort of barriers. The trick is to overcome them. It will take good arguments and perserverence.
__ Commentary & Discussion of This Paper (Once you have registered)
About the site: Comments to Webmaster [webmaster@the-commons.org ]
Page last updated on 10 September 1997.
Copyright © 1994-1997, EcoPlan International, Paris,France. ® All rights reserved.