This blog post is quite a departure from my typical ones about climate change economics and policy and/or my latest podcast. It’s actually stimulated by comments that were offered by my colleague, Jim Stock, at the conclusion of this past Wednesday’s Harvard Seminar in Environmental Economics and Policy.
At the beginning of the seminar, before introducing the day’s excellent presenter, Anna Russo, I announced two changes/improvements in the Seminar starting in the spring semester. One is that after 35 years of hosting the seminar series – first solo for 2 years, then 28 years with Marty Weitzman, and most recently 5 years with Jim Stock (that’s 70 semesters and a total of more than 500 seminars) – I was delighted to state that my Harvard Kennedy School colleague, Wolfram Schlenker, had agreed to take over for me in the spring, and co-host the Seminar with Jim. That’s one of two upgrades. (No, I’m not retiring, and I will be teaching my environmental economics and policy course as usual in the spring semester).
The other upgrade is that it will become the Harvard-MIT Joint Seminar in Environmental Economics and Policy, meeting every week on Thursdays, 4:30-5:45 pm, but alternating locations between Harvard and MIT. The first seminar in the spring semester will be on Thursday, February 5th.
At the end of Wednesday’s seminar, after Anna’s presentation, I made my usual closing comment that the spring semester schedule will be sent out soon. But before I could stand up to leave, Jim Stock surprised me (and presumably others in the room) by standing up, moving to the front of the room, and expressing his thanks for my having founded and led the Seminar for the past 35 years (as well as making some broader, very generous comments about my contributions to environmental economics and policy at Harvard and beyond). Jim knows that I am resistant to being acknowledged publicly, let alone celebrated, so I’m not going to compound matters by repeating any of it here.
So, then, what’s the reason for this blog post today? It’s quite simple. When Jim spoke at the end of the seminar, he read a list of the authors and papers from the very first semester that I had co-hosted with Marty Weitzman in the fall of 1992, and it turned out that the list included to future Nobel laureates, Bill Nordhaus and Bob Solow (plus one who should have been – in my view – Marty himself).
I’ve inserted the schedule below for your reading pleasure. Topics in environmental economics at that time were clearly much broader than today, when the profession is focused (albeit not exclusively) on climate change. For some of you, reviewing the schedule below will bring back memories, but I hope for everyone, it will be of interest.
Addressing climate change with meaningful policy action will be neither cheap nor easy, but presently the greatest barrier to action in the United States is not technological, nor perhaps even economic, but fundamentally political. This becomes a theme in my latest podcast, where I engage in a wide-ranging conversation about economics, politics, and climate change with Gernot Wagner, Clinical Associate Professor at New York University, and former staff economist at the Environmental Defense Fund.
You can hear our complete conversation in the podcast here.
Wagner, whose career also includes time spent as a consultant at the Boston Consulting Group and a journalist at the Financial Times, brings to his thinking about the economics of climate change policy a rich and varied set of perspectives gained through his years of multi-sectoral experience.
He is a graduate of Harvard College, where he took my environmental economics course as a freshman (and then proceeded to receive the highest grade in the class). In addition, I had the privilege of serving as chair of Gernot’s dissertation committee when he received his Ph.D. in Political Economy and Government from Harvard in 2007.
“I went to meet Marty on a Thursday that week,” Wagner recalls in our podcast conversation. “I remember Marty sitting me down and first of all, taking me seriously…much like you did. You did try to dissuade me from taking your class, but then I ended up taking it later that year. But Marty sat me down and guided me through, maybe in an attempt at dissuading me frankly of wanting to become an environmental economist or academic.”
In my podcast conversation with Gernot, we turn to the topic of current-day climate policy, and Wagner sounds cautiously optimistic about the chances that the United States will meet the Biden Administration’s recently announced commitment to reduce CO2 emissions by 50-to-52 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2030, saying that it would be technically and economically feasible, although politically difficult.
“I’d like to think I can make a cogent argument for why it will happen, and this administration is uniquely positioned to make it happen. And the approach it is taking seems to be on the right path,” Wagner says, while also admitting that it will be a challenge for the administration to get any meaningful climate policy through a divided Congress.
Wagner also expresses his hope for establishing a carbon price of between 60 and 300 dollars per ton to provide incentives for companies and industries to reduce CO2 emissions. Exxon, he notes, has recently come out in support of a carbon price of 50 dollars per ton, but Democrats in Washington are not satisfied with that proposal.
“The progressives in the House wants something that has a higher price equivalent. The Biden Administration might be slightly less ambitious on that front,” he says. “All of it is still much more ambitious than the…simple 50 dollar per ton of CO2 carbon tax.”
At the end of our conversation, I ask Wagner for his thoughts on the youth climate movements that became prominent in 2019.
“What we do see is amazing action in the right direction, on a whole lot of different dimensions,” Gernot remarks. “Now we are back to – what should this movement push for? And frankly, now we are back to the raw politics of it all. It’s very, very difficult to see – the one simple approach that will just solve it all. That basically doesn’t exist. It exists in theory, maybe. Not in practice.”
David Keith, professor at Harvard and a leading authority on geoengineering
Joe Aldy, professor of the practice of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, with considerable experience working on climate change policy issues in the U.S. government
Scott Barrett, professor of natural resource economics at Columbia University, and an authority on infectious disease policy
Rebecca Henderson, John and Natty McArthur University Professor at Harvard University, and founding co-director of the Business and Environment Initiative at Harvard Business School.
Sue Biniaz, who was the lead climate lawyer and a lead climate negotiator for the United States from 1989 until early 2017.
The world lost a remarkable scholar, a great economist, and a gentle soul on August 27th of this year, when Martin Weitzman sadly passed away. In my previous post at this blog (A Gift that Keeps on Giving: The Contributions of Martin Weitzman to Environmental Economics), I described in detail how Marty’s contributions advanced the thinking of environmental and other economists, as well as the thoughts and actions of policymakers on many fundamental issues, including policy instrument choice, discounting, species diversity, and environmental catastrophes.
Today I wish to follow up on that essay to inform readers of my blog that on Saturday, October 26th, at 1:00 pm, a Memorial Service for Marty Weitzman will be held at Harvard’s Memorial Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts, with a reception following at the Harvard Faculty Club.
Marty Weitzman was a real treasure – a ‘gift that kept on giving’ – for both the research and policy worlds. His work changed the way economists and others think about the environment and policies to protect it. Marty was – and is – a gift that keeps on giving.