The Lost Entry: "Day 7: Of Buzzwords and Bucket Models"

Today was the day. I have spent quite some time working on this silly, coupled climate-carbon cycle model, so it was nice to see it go through to its culmination. Although it ended up being significantly simpler than I had intended, its results gave impressive results when validated against time series CO2 concentration and global temperature data from 1960 to 1996, using historical data for CO2 emissions during that period. I have not performed a rigorous sensitivity analysis, so the historical test was the only benchmark, but the model predictions for 2050 were very consistent with the middle range of other, more complex models, such as the one developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The results you ask? I fit the 1960-2002 anthropogenic CO2 emissions with a simple exponential regression, calculating an annual growth rate of 2.25%. If this pattern continues (perhaps this is unrealistic because of the imminent scarcity of oil, but I'm willing to wager that increases in coal and natural gas consumption are probable to make up the difference, per a substitution effect) then global mean temperature is predicted to increase by 1 degree Celsius, and the atmospheric CO2 concentration is computed to rise from 380 ppm to 616 ppm by 2050. If Kyoto is successful and emissions are held at its levels after the 2010-2012 goal (highly unlikely, at current rates), then the warming could be cut in half to 0.48 degrees, with an increase of CO2 concentration to 485 ppm. I also projected a simple scenario of decreasing carbon emissions beginning immediately, following an environmental Kuznets curve, and the warming is slowed to about 0.42 degrees and CO2 is held to about 474 ppm by 2050. My Kuznets curve projection represents the absolute, best-case scenario in my opinion. Its assumption is that CO2 emissions immediately start to decrease from today, following a pattern of decline that is roughly a mirror image of their increase. Such a scenario is perhaps lunacy, but as a thought-experiment it shows how our excessive emissions and the system's time delays have combined to create a very scary situation. In other words, climate change is here,I believe. While I don't feel comfortable extrapolating beyond 2050 with this model, it's worthwhile to note that the system does not reach equilibrium by 2050 under the Kuznets curve projection or the Kyoto projection.

Silly me! I have forgotten to tell you anything about the conference itself. I'll keep this brief. Essentially, it was a meeting of the Society for Organizational Learning Consortium Group: a group of businesses and NGOs that are interested in implementing environmentally sustainable business and social practices and policies as part of their business and political plans. As society adopts a more accurate view of economic interactions with the environment, and as environmental degradation continuous to come upon us, businesses such as these have become more interested in growth and earnings in a long- and very long-term perspective. Companies are starting to realize the self-evident fact that many environmental practices are linked to efficiency gains. Look at DuPont, for example. Some guy from that company pointed out that between 1990 and 2000, the corporation increased sales/revenue by about 30%, while simultaneously decreasing their total energy consumption. They saved $2 billion because of their energy efficiency gains, $2 billion that can be invested in R&D or further efficiency improvements. Environmentally-friendly practices, especially those focused around efficiency, are frequently capable of saving money and the globe at the same time.

While there were a lot of serious buzzwords and phrases thrown around (my personal favorite being “the communication multiplier”), it was a very interesting fusion of public and business policy. I have great hope that the cooperation between governmental, intergovernmental, and economic players is finally occurring, so that we may approach a more sustainable future. They loved my talk and model, probably mostly because I represented the next generation of people dealing with environmental degradation and I gave a fairly coherent and articulate perspective on it. Nothing I said was really profound (or “paradigm shifting” as they would say), but I think the mere act of having a younger person say it was appreciated most by the participants today.

Lastly, the experience gave me crucial insight on business processes versus the largely academic and political ones with which I have previously been acquainted. One significant observation I had was in relation to they way ideas are transmitted in a business environment, compared with my academic setting. My limited experience in academia is that rigorous criticism is applied to every idea, particularly new ones. So much criticism is often used, that some people (particularly students) interpret it as hostility. But criticism is wonderful. I have already expressed my opinions about that to you all. It seems to me that the academic process is one in which people consistently try to estimate and prove truths in the world, and the only way to find out if these attempts are indeed truthful is by doing everything possible to disprove them. School, and particularly my relationships with Jonathan and Leeor have made me into a fairly skeptical and critical person in this mold. In contrast, ideas in the business world are greeted with a great deal more enthusiasm. Rather than seeking to prove the ideas by trying to destroy them, the business world only cares about implementing things that might make money. Instead of, asking the question “Is it true, and if so, what truths can we derive from it?” ideas seem to be greeted with the question “How can we make it work?” In essence, the intellectual burden of proof for ideas is typically much lower in the business world than in the academic world, I think. The truth (no pun intended) of the matter is that I remain mentally wedded to this idea of hypercriticism and valuing ideas for their own sake, rather than appreciating their implementation. Ergo, I am a bad fit for all of this business stuff in general. I think there are few realms of the business world that are analytic enough for my liking, such as financial modeling and stocks, but these are a minority. Perhaps I am to dry and ponderous for it all.. I suppose that will make me a foolish person—or more probably, a modestly poor one.

Nonetheless, today's events truly opened my eyes to this fascinating and heartening synergy (I'm picking up buzzwords now) of all the elements needed for positive change in environmental and economic policy.