OK.
Now we're going
to have some fun,
and hopefully continue
to learn a lot.
We've assembled an
absolutely first rate panel
of seven distinguished folks
to address a very interesting
and-- a question that's
enormously pertinent to us
at MIT, which is how should
MIT as an institution
advance the whole
issue of science
in particular in
this climate arena.
Arguably, you've all been
part of the very first step
in this process today.
We've taken-- you've all heard
lots of very interesting talks
about things going
on here, mostly
at this institution, that are
advancing our understanding
and our ability to deal
with climate change.
And this is an attempt to
put these things together
in some way.
And so part of the issue
before us is, how can we
take that step further?
Another part of that
issue is how, or should,
MIT as an institution do
something in this arena?
For example, we've
heard some today,
including just now by
Justin Gillis, the problem
of campaigns of disinformation.
A lot of us here
at the Institute,
as individual scientists,
engineers, try to fight this,
but we aren't doing
anything really
so far at the institutional
level for that.
So here's how things
are going to work.
I'm not going to
reintroduce the panel,
because they've all been
introduced to you individually
before.
I don't want to
take up the time,
but I've asked each
of the panelists
to give maybe a one to
three minute take on this
without visuals, just
their own view of this.
And that will take a little
less than half of the hour
we have available to us.
And then we're going to open
it up to questions from you.
And the way we decided
to do that-- we're MIT.
We're trying to use
advanced techniques-- is
you have essentially three ways
of posing a question to us.
And one of them is to text it,
and there is an instruction
for how you do that.
Those messages will
come to me, OK?
In fact, they all will.
You can do it via the
web, or you can email us.
And I will screen
those questions,
and I will favor those that
are relevant to the point
and pithy, OK?
So try not to engage in
long monologues by email.
And we'll try to work it
that way and see how it goes.
Now, I'm fully
aware that there are
some people in the
audience, perhaps, who don't
have the means to do this.
And I would suggest
that you lean over
to another member
of the audience,
particularly if they're
young, and ask if you
could do it through them, OK?
So with that, we'll proceed.
And I'll ask Justin
Gillis to begin.
Since I just had a long
say, why don't I pass,
and we'll use the time
and let Valerie start.
And then I'll be happy
to respond to questions.
Great.
Thank you.
So I would say that as
representatives of MIT,
one of the most important things
that we can do on this issue
is really to go out and to
listen in multiple senses.
So I think the
listening that we do
takes essentially three forms.
One is going out and listening
to the key stakeholders,
particularly in the emerging
world, which have such
a strong and important
stake and role
to play in mitigation
and adaptation efforts
at the global level.
So talking to people
in those governments,
trying to understand
what it is that they face
in terms of data challenges,
in terms of policy design
challenges.
And then as we come
back to MIT and discuss
how we think about
approaching our research,
we will have in mind a
kind of on the ground
feel for what the challenges
are and what types of analysis
can be valuable
in those contexts.
I also think listening can
happen in two additional senses
that are very important.
One is, I think, in terms
of our public communication
around climate change.
I think we need to
talk to skeptics.
We may not even want
to call them skeptics.
We may want to call them
people first, and then
think about them in terms
of the opinions they hold.
And in doing this,
I think we actually
start to build bridges rather
than create divisions that
have proven so detrimental
to constructive across the
dialogue, across party
lines types of discussions
in this country and
in other places.
And then, finally, I
think listening just
has to happen more internally,
across all of the people
here at MIT who are doing
really terrific work on climate
change, trying to move these
agendas forward, and take stock
of all that we're doing,
appreciate all that we're
doing, and then find ways of
synthesizing that in maybe
its loose networks.
Maybe it's ways of
communicating all
that we're doing in
some coherent way
to the wider world.
And that's something
I'm still thinking
hard about how to
do and look forward
to joining you all
in that challenge.
Good afternoon.
OK, so, first of all, I'm going
to take the opportunity here
to let you know
that we can continue
the fun of this event on Friday.
We are having a climate
hackathon in room 7429.
It's for the MIT community.
Please join us.
The Climate Collab and the
Environmental Solutions
Initiative are holding
a day long event.
Professors are going to act
as coaches on brainstorming
and developing
ideas from all those
who participate and
attend on climate actions.
So please join us.
It should be a lot of
fun and productive.
OK, so.
With the remaining
half minute, so I
have had the privilege, as the
new director of Environmental
Solutions Initiative, of
listening and traveling
around the Institute, convening
groups, sitting with labs,
individuals, departments,
deans, to talk
about what MIT should
be doing through ESI
in a variety of ways on
environmental issues, climate
science being just one of them.
So I'd like to suggest
that, first of all,
there are many individuals
and labs and centers
and departments who are very
engaged with the real world.
I think part of my role will be
to forefront that engagement.
It's distributed.
It's department lab
centric, typically.
But the sum of those parts
is pretty extraordinary.
And so bringing
them all together
and coordinating them
for greater effect
that MIT has in taking
action on climate change,
I think is an
important thing to do.
So my suggestion
is that we could
hold an event, maybe
a series of events,
around environmental
change-- and I'm
talking about environmental
change, not just
climate change.
Has to do with a catastrophic
or very difficult
situation, urban
pollution, sudden sea level
rise, environmental agent
proliferation, and disease.
A scenario in which the multiple
disciplines that come out
of the five schools
at MIT can then
participate in a kind
of war game scenario.
So play out scenarios.
There is no better
way of communicating
what the university's, and what
different disciplines' role can
be by just playing it out.
And this is something I'm going
to be suggesting and moving
forward with.
And I hope you and the
rest of the MIT community
would be interested in joining.
Thank you.
So I guess I'm
the representative
of people who sort of
work on energy solutions.
And the one thing that
strikes me is avoiding what--
and I'm an empiricist,
because I'm a scientist.
And I keep getting struck
by we have to-- don't
do what hasn't worked.
And what hasn't worked is
a little bit to what Justin
had said, is that I have this
cartoon in my head of Professor
Genius, who goes
into his lab and he
makes this perfect energy source
that no one will ever use,
because it's perfect in his
own mind in a scientific way.
And I have that cartoon
because I worried that that
was me working on fusion.
And so part of this
is that what MIT--
which I think it
is doing, but we
need to keep thinking about
what this means as we evolve
the low carbon energy
centers-- is to start placing
our work in energy sources and
energy distribution and storage
in a much larger context of all
of the things that you heard
today, which include the
societal economic aspects
of what's going on.
Because if you just do
this work in isolation,
I think that we are seeing
that it's not necessarily
very effective, actually,
about that enormous lift
we have, about moving to a
low carbon energy economy.
So, in that sense, it's sort
of a little bit to what John
is saying, and I think
everyone's saying.
It's engagement.
You know, it's engagement
across disciplines,
which are not usually
necessarily talking
to each other on
a regular basis.
As physicists working on a
advanced nuclear energy source,
we're not used to
talking to sociologists.
But it is actually
really important.
And I guess what
I would just urge
is that I know there's
been a variety of reactions
to the MIT climate change plan.
I would just say is that please
don't-- because I'm going to be
engaged heavily in those
low carbon energy centers--
is don't think of these as
isolated research as usual
going on.
This is now a new opportunity
for actually engagement
of the entire community, in
fact, and about how we actually
solve the problem.
So thank you.
I think a theme is developing.
My sense is MIT
has under invested
in the pedagogy of
science communication.
I mean, I know we have a
science writing program,
and I think that's wonderful,
but in a sense, that grows out
of a theory that we
need intermediaries
between scientists
and the public.
And if only the journalist
would please do our work for us
and figure out how
to communicate it,
then all that brilliant
scientific work
would get communicated.
And while I think
listening's important,
I think there's a big
problem with the fact
that a very large
number of the faculty
are silent in teaching or
modeling for their own students
what their theory of practice
is with regard to science
communication.
In other words, I
work not just at MIT
but I work elsewhere
as a mediator
in complicated disputes.
I'm often in science
intensive disputes
between what you describe people
as nonbelievers or skeptics.
I'm often in the middle in
community settings, because we
try to involve everybody
in the community.
And so you get, if
you are successful,
people with very, very
different ways of framing
and understanding things.
I think if there's anybody who's
studying science or engineering
here who doesn't end up with a
very explicit personal theory
of practice about how
they're going to communicate
their science to
non-scientists and to people
in other disciplines,
then we have failed
as a teaching institution.
And unfortunately, I don't
think very many faculty
could tell you what it is they
would teach with regard to how
this should happen.
We're just holding out hope that
some intermediaries-- the AAAS
model-- that some
intermediaries will emerge who
will be science communicators.
Oh, and maybe MIT
can train them, too,
but I don't think that's it.
I think it's a very, very
serious problem of learning
how to communicate, not
just across disciplines,
but with all kinds of publics,
both in an off the cuff way,
but also in writing.
And if people aren't
able to write an Op Ed,
if they aren't able to
put in a blog something
that someone can understand
about a complex issue
that they are totally expert on,
there's something very wrong.
Yeah, it's getting harder and
harder to think of new things
to say, but I would like
to see-- and in many ways
this is already in the
climate action plan--
but I would like to see MIT take
a serious effort at answering
the question, is this two
degree target achievable?
Or what do we need to do to
change the way we do things now
to make it achievable?
That's a really worthwhile
goal, and we have, here at MIT,
pretty much all of
the expertise needed,
and we can draw
upon it elsewhere.
Let me just say something on
the lateral sciences side,
looking at the two degrees.
It's already been mentioned
by several people,
including in my talk, that
the climate response has
got significant uncertainty.
And there's a misconception
about climate response
versus climate sensitivity.
Sensitivity is an equilibrium
notion, and pretty much
where we're going
to be transient.
Temperatures are going to
go up and down, and so on.
And you've got to
think of the other two
things that are really important
beyond climate sensitivity.
Those are the ocean
heat and carbon
sink, and the role of aerosols.
Now, we've all heard, and
Justin Gillis reminded us,
that we haven't done much
to lower the uncertainty
range in climate sensitivity.
There are many reasons for that.
We happen to be in
a transient climate
and trying to tell what the
sensitivity is buried in there.
But I think we can do
more on the other two
fronts of big
scientific uncertainty
in climate response,
which I take
as the response of
a transient climate.
And that is to look
at these other two
things, the role of
the ocean in taking up
our carbon and heat,
and the role of aerosols
in cooling or warming the world.
Getting those
uncertainties down then
helps define the pathway,
because right now,
with the response in fact
having about a factor of three
effect on the costs, because
the higher the response,
the higher the cost
it's going to be
to transform the energy system.
You've got to do it faster
and faster the higher
the climate response.
And the other thing
I'll emphasize
in looking at the
two degree goal
is we also need to think about
lowering the costs of these low
and zero energy technologies.
The lower that
cost gets, the less
it costs for the world
to make the transition.
So for the engineering challenge
for these low cost carbon
sensors is don't just think
about, is it neat and feasible?
?
How can you get the cost so
it's not just for affordable
in California or New England,
but how can it be affordable
in China, India, and so on?
And that's got to be
part of it as well.
I don't know whether we can
achieve the two degree target.
It is very challenging.
But I think it's the ideal
thing for MIT to take that on,
to answer the question.
Is it possible?
And can we make it possible
if that isn't currently
possible with what we know?
What do we need to do to make it
possible on the technology side
and on the science side?
Thanks.
So I'd like to begin
by reminding everyone.
One of the most significant
agreements to date
that has limited warming
was the Montreal Protocol
that limited CFCs.
And that, from the
beginning, was not a given.
There was opposition to it, with
people questioning the science
and questioning
whether limiting CFC--
the connection between
CFCs and the ozone
hole-- while DuPont quietly
worked on an alternative
to freon.
And once that alternative
was available,
such that people
didn't have to change
how they lived their lives,
the Montreal Protocol
was quickly signed.
So that leads me
to my main point.
I think that looking for
solutions to our dependence
on fossil fuels,
affordable solutions that
don't make people
change the way they live
their lives in
horrible ways such
that they can't imagine life
going on as they know it,
is something that MIT has
the great strength to do.
And to do it, MIT has to
start attacking this problem
at an enterprise level.
MIT has great strengths
in geosciences,
across all of the engineering,
in urban planning,
in transportation, in energy,
in economics, in business.
They've got excellence
in all of these areas.
But it's time to roll
that all up together,
because just as Dennis said, you
can't get affordable solutions
that society is going
to embrace unless MIT
starts acting as an enterprise
to develop those solutions.
Good.
Well, thank you very
much, and I have to say,
I've been up here
absolutely overwhelmed
by some really good questions.
And if I don't ask
yours, I apologize.
A lot of the questions address
the general problem of climate.
There are very good
questions there,
but we are really here to
talk about what MIT's role,
and so I've tried to be a
bit selective about that.
So the first question that
I'll take from the ones
that I've got is simply this.
MIT, many of you are
aware, issued in October
its climate action plan
in response to a report
from a committee
of faculty, staff,
and students-- which
I was on-- about what
MIT's role should be.
And I think some
of the panelists,
anyway, are familiar
with that plan.
They may not all be, but
I'll pose the question
that was posed to me.
Is MIT's climate
action plan sufficient?
Why or why not?
No.
It can't possibly be.
OK, John.
So I'll dive into that.
So I want to take one
little piece of it.
Actually, two pieces.
So the first piece
is on buildings.
The 32% energy reduction.
So I'm an architect.
I'm a building-- very recently
formerly head of the building
technology program here.
We have a world class
building technology program.
The 32% is aspirational,
and the statement
from the upper
administration in a faculty
meeting, and my
concurrence, is that we
can do better than that.
So the fact is,
let's just do it.
I mean, the point I'm
making is that the document
is a document in time at
one-- written at one point.
No one's going to say,
oh, we've got 32%.
Time to stop.
Right?
So that's my main point.
The second thing I
want to-- and that's
really just on
the building side,
because I'm an architect and
building technology person.
One other thing I want to
say on the climate action
or what MIT should be doing
is that the solutions part--
solutions has been
mentioned many times today.
The name of the
initiative I'm directing
is the Environmental
Solutions Initiative.
And I think it is really
important to broaden
the notion of solution.
I absolutely believe that
technology breakthroughs
with cost reductions
and innovation
and essentially market
uptake, absolutely essential.
The other part of solutions
that the university has
a extraordinary footprint
or an extraordinary ability
to create and
mobilize is providing
educational opportunities on
the best quality climate science
and other environmental topics.
Giving students here at MIT
a hands on opportunities
to apply that knowledge.
Having a career
path so that they
decide that it's worthwhile
taking a climate science
or other environmental topic.
And building environmental
literacy in the student bodies
here, undergraduate or graduate,
is extraordinarily important,
because the solutions
that come out
of that is that once
they leave here--
they're only here for four
years, the undergrads.
Once they leave, they
continue on with that work,
because it's obvious this is
not a four year problem, right?
This is a multi-decadal problem.
So that's the
solutions part that I
think MIT can do
a lot more about
and that we will be
doing through the ESI
and other programs here at MIT.
Anyone else?
Yes, Ron.
Yeah.
I would add that looking
at the climate plan,
that there needs to be a
better appreciation of the role
of the natural sciences
that still remains,
even in looking at the solution.
In my talk today,
I made the point
that planning a pathway
towards two degrees,
we have this big uncertainty
in the climate response.
And I think somehow we need
to do more on that front
than is hinted at in
the climate action plan.
The science is not all
settled in the sense
of sufficient accuracy to guide
the pathway to the future.
So we should continue
on that front
and make it clear
that that is part
of the solution going forward.
Did you want to say anything?
So, Valerie.
Did you-- was the
question is the plan
sufficient or efficient?
The question was worded
is it sufficient?
Why or why not?
OK.
On the efficiency question I had
carbon tax ready as an answer,
but I guess, just
very briefly on that,
I guess I would say
I think, particularly
on the issue of fossil free
MIT, I was-- In the plan,
I think one element that
might've liked to have seen
was actually thinking
about innovative ways
that the campus could use
carbon pricing in the evaluation
of investment opportunities.
And so I would have liked
to have seen a little bit
more nuance and
perhaps some attention
to efficient, even if perhaps
too idealistic, solutions.
OK.
You want to talk on that?
Yes.
I gather that on this
divestment issue, that
was a part of the
request from the students
that the administration
turned down last year.
And my impression is
the MIT board considers
that a final decision.
The students apparently
do not, some of them,
and are sort of making that
point with their bodies.
A lot of the resistance
among institutions
to the divestment
question has been
to sort of throw up their
hands and say, how are we
supposed to judge this?
What's a good
fossil fuel company?
What's a bad fossil
fuel company?
And so, it's kind of this
tension between divestment
versus engagement.
And people are trying to
navigate that boundary right
now.
We've got a lot of interesting
engagement stuff going on,
demands from the shareholders
of these companies.
This is about to get a lot more
interesting, because there's
a group at Oxford, and I
believe some people from Harvard
are participating in this.
Dan Schrag from Harvard I'm
pretty sure is involved.
They are looking at--
if those in the audience
are old enough to remember
the South Africa divestment
debate a generation
ago, there was
something called the
Sullivan Principles
devised by a minister named
Leon Sullivan in Philadelphia.
This was a strong
set of principles
about how you get yourself
out of the doghouse
if you're a company, what you
need to do in South Africa
to not be on the
divestment list.
So people are now-- the
climate divestment movement
has not had that.
People are now working on that.
This Oxford Harvard project
has come out already
with a preliminary
list of what they
think the standards should be.
I think, right now, all of
the fossil fuel companies
would fail that standard.
But the point is to get
them to sort of-- I mean,
the explicit idea
is this problem
is not going to be
solved without investment
in the solutions from this best
capitalized of all industries,
right?
And so the things on this
list are do you agree?
A kind of a checklist, do you
agree with climate science?
Do you agree with the 2 C goal?
What's your plan for getting to
zero net emissions by the time
of meeting the 2 C goal?
How much are you investing?
How rapidly are you going
to ramp down looking for new
fossil fuel resources that
we cannot afford to burn?
So while the
Institute's board might
think it has made
a final decision,
I would predict
that there's going
to be a very different
conversation when
this thing comes out,
which is supposed
to be in I think the
September, October time frame.
I think that's a good lead
in to another question that
was posed by some of
you, or perhaps part
of the virtual audience.
Which is that one part of MIT,
of the proposal we made to MIT,
is that like many
other institutions,
we establish an Investment
Ethics Advisory Council,
just so that there is community
input to the sorts of questions
we were just talking about.
And the question is why
did they turn us down?
And what do you think of that?
So if there's anyone
on the panel who
has an opinion about
that, go for it.
Looks like a third rail to me.
[LAUGHTER]
OK, we'll move right along
to the next question, then.
They didn't ask us.
I would venture to say that
we didn't make that decision,
so maybe we're not
the people to ask.
Yes.
OK.
We were not consulted.
All right.
This question I'm going
to ask seems tailor
made for one of our panelists.
The questioner says, we can
only get up to about 20%
with renewables,
barring, I presume,
barring some breakthrough in
energy storage and transmission
technology.
How can MIT convince a
skeptical public of the need
to, and virtues of,
having nuclear power?
Well, that's you, isn't it?
Right.
So it is-- so I mean, part of
it is simply communication.
I mean, there was sort
of-- I heard the question
that came from the back.
There was sort of a
surprise nuclear energy was
at that low part of the thing
in terms of mortality rates.
So part of it is communication.
And we've had many discussions
about this as well, too, Kerry.
It's that you have to remember
the plot that I showed,
actually, which was the
deployment of nuclear energy
actually was rapid and
was accepted by society.
But it was the date.
It was-- that's
60-year-old technology.
And is exactly the same
technology in place
right now in the reactors
that we build-- and we're
talking about fission.
So part of this is
also understanding
that there's an enormous
spectrum of options which
actually relieve our societal
and economic anxieties,
actually, about using nuclear
energy in a much larger scale.
Those are not coming
into place fast enough.
And that's actually part of
what I believe the low carbon
centers and a broader
activity actually has
to occur for that to happen.
So it's sort of do the math.
I mean, if you can't come
up with a breakthrough
that we don't see yet in
actually energy storage or much
more efficient
transmission, then
that's the option on the table.
And I'll just make one plug.
We can go all the way.
We seriously under invest in a
form of nuclear energy, which
actually does address
the Century Society's
concerns, which is fusion.
But in fact, we're not even
close to making the investment
that's required in fact
to make that a reality
as a economic energy source.
So that's my one
point for fusion.
Ron?
Yeah.
I was going to say,
I agree with Dennis.
It turns out his
analysis looks rather
similar to the one I
presented from a totally
different approach.
There's no doubt
that renewables,
which I define as wind,
solar, biomass, biofuels,
and so on, but also
hydro and nuclear,
have got to become the major
parts of the energy system.
No matter whether the climate
response is high-low, medium,
that result was robust, that
you had to keep all of those.
Add in geothermal and other ones
that weren't mentioned there,
and my view is everything's
got to be on the table.
And I personally
think it's going
to be a competition for who can
produce low to zero emission
energy at the deepest cost.
Those technologies will
be the ones that will win.
And also different mixes
will win in different parts
of the world.
Certainly that's the work
that we've done so far.
It's not one solution
for the world.
But what I was showing you
was the sum of all of them.
But there'll be
different approaches
in each part of the world.
But there's no doubt
that somehow we
have got to get
these-- electric power,
for example, coming
from these low
to mid to zero emitting
options as soon as we can.
And that means make
them affordable.
Larry?
You know, I just want to
note a point of caution.
I agree, it would be great if
MIT can help to either generate
new technologies or new ways
of using old technologies that
can move us toward
renewables of various kinds.
But I spend a lot
of time working
in Chile trying to
stop HidroAysen which
is a very, very large
hydro project, which
was proposed to serve a national
effort to have enough energy.
It's a country with-- not going
to have nuclear, because there
are too many earthquakes.
And it has no oil.
It has no gas.
It doesn't want to
take any more gas
from Argentina for a whole
series of good reasons.
And so they decided hydro.
Except the hydro they were
proposing was 1,000 miles away
from the capital and going to go
through the land of the Mapuche
people.
And there were no
consultation, no consideration,
no social impact assessment,
meager environmental impact
assessment.
And any site specific decisions,
whether the nuclear or anything
else, cannot just be pursued
in the name of getting to 2%.
I mean, there are too many
trade-- to two degrees.
There's just too many tradeoffs
that have to be made explicit,
and that people in
those places have
to have opportunities to
participate in the discussion.
So it can't just be the most
efficient method, in theory,
for how to do this.
All of the site
specific context,
specific social, political,
and economic concerns,
have got to be debated,
discussed, and decided
in ways that are consultative
with regard to the people who
are affected.
So I don't want MIT to just
be lined up behind technology
solutions and to lose
sight of the fact
that also at MIT, we teach
people how to participate
in place specific decisions.
How to engage people,
how to balance all
these kinds of considerations.
Yeah.
I think what Larry just
said is a very good example
that really all energy
solutions that are on the table
have impacts.
Solar has impact.
Wind has impact.
Nuclear has impact.
Even geothermal has impact.
It induces earthquakes.
So I think it's important
in this enterprise solution
approach that MIT takes,
that all of these impacts
are weighed and they are
all taken into account.
And I think that climate is one
of the issues in terms of CO2
and all of this has to be
weighed, measured, considered
and then decided on what's
the best way forward.
And that's why
sometimes, one might
decide that solar panels on
homes, because it's already
disturbed space, is
the best way to go,
whereas sometimes
industrial scale
solar is the best way to go.
And it's not a one
size fits all solution.
OK.
I think in the interest
of diversity of topics,
we'll move on to
another question.
But it's related, of course.
That is, it's been discussed
here, earlier today,
that to really
alleviate the risk,
we are collectively
going to need
to reduce our emissions
by order 80% to 100% or so
over the coming decades.
And the question is
should MIT hold itself
to the same standard, that, for
example, the town of Cambridge
has committed to in
becoming 100% renewable?
Maybe there are people from
the MIT administration looking
at this panel, but why don't
you pretend that there aren't.
So it's an easy question.
It's an easy question.
No, it's not an easy
question, actually.
In the end, this is an issue.
You can see it in
our student body.
You can see it in our faculty.
You know, it raises a lot
of emotions, actually,
this, because it's
about our home.
It's about our planet.
It's about our health.
And so forth.
But in the end it's
numbers, I mean,
if the numbers
don't work out, you
can put goals in front
of you that say great,
I'm going to be 100%
carbon free in two years,
but you know it'll never work.
What's the point of
putting that forward?
You have to be realistic--
ambitious and realistic,
actually, at the same
time, I think, in this.
And that's why realism was
in the title of my talk.
You have to go
through the numbers.
You have to see, well,
so does that make sense?
I mean, can anybody
say, right today,
that they had a zero carbon day?
And of course, the
answer is that in fact
this hall, the way we all got
here, the food we ate today,
was all done with
carbon based energy.
So that's the reality of it.
It's so embedded in what we do.
We don't even
really recognize it.
So talking about 100%
carbon free MIT is
a little bit-- it's not
within our grasp right now,
I don't think.
That's in my opinion.
So, there'll probably be
some contrary [INAUDIBLE].
I think the question was
about whether we should commit
to the goal, not whether we
make a promise today that we're
at there when we can't do it.
You're more likely to
achieve a goal if you set it
and commit, and
commit to continuing
to try to build capacity
and improve and monitor.
This goes back-- I didn't
say anything before,
but you talked-- d- the
adequacy of a plan, right?
I'm a teacher of planning.
We assume that a
master plan for a city
is outdated the
moment it's published.
And the point of
making a master plan
is to build, to use
it as an occasion
to commit to what you're going
to monitor, what you want
to learn, what you
want to improve,
what capacity you have to have.
And so I think-- I thought
the question was about
should we commit to it?
The other thing that's a little
disturbing about the question
and about MIT's
way of working, is
how could we
possibly distinguish
what we do from the
city of Cambridge?
Why do we have a plan that's
not totally integrated with
and part of the
city of Cambridge?
It doesn't make any sense.
We are part of the place.
And we might have some
things within that,
but we should be full partners.
We should be full partners
with the city of Cambridge.
Everything we do has an effect
on everyone else in Cambridge.
So what is a commitment though
that has no timeline and no
know dedication of
resources to it?
It's not a real commitment.
Make a good--
It just doesn't make--
Make a commitment to improve a
certain percentage every year
and to commit the resources
to monitor, to learn, to make
adjustments, to
experiment, to invest.
That's the commitment I
thought was implied by
do you want to aim for that?
Do you want to aspire to it?
Well, then I say let's do that.
I absolutely agree.
Let's get the numbers
and figure out
how long it realistically
takes, with the resources
it will take to allocate it,
and then let's get it done.
But let's make it realistic
and then make it happen.
Right.
We agree.
I'll just add, very
briefly, my own two cents.
I mean, one of the
things I thought
was really good
about our proposal
MIT is that this
campus be used as kind
of a living laboratory for how
to proceed on this problem.
This is one issue where it could
be considered an experiment.
I mean, how far can
we go on this business
of becoming highly efficient,
renewable and so forth?
But moving right along.
Here's, I think, a very
interesting question.
We heard today from
faculty and others
at MIT and from outside MIT
about work going on largely
in the spheres of science
and engineering and policy.
And the question
is, to what extent
can humanistic knowledge, or
should humanistic knowledge,
be brought to bear on
this problem, for example
here at MIT?
And I sort of
interpret that question
to mean issues like
ethical issues.
Should they, the philosophy
and ethics of climate
change, be part of an
MIT student's education?
If I can interpret the
question a little bit.
Yes, Marsha.
Well, I think we saw a
great example of that
in this past year with the
Pope's stand on climate change
as a moral and ethical issue.
And I think that resonated
with a whole group of people
around the globe who might not
have resonated with climate
change message coming
from scientists,
but did resonate when it came
from someone who was speaking
about it as a moral issue.
Because, as the Pope
put it, the people
who are most vulnerable
to climate change
were the people who
had done the least
to contribute to
the problem, namely
the vulnerable population
were the massive number
of poor people
living in Bangladesh
and in the coastal
regions of Rio
and other places like
that that were going
to be at risk of rising seas.
And they were the group
that had contributed least
to the release of fossil fuels.
So I think that's
an excellent example
of what the person who
put in the question
was perhaps referring to.
Yes, Valerie.
Just briefly, I think in the
Sloan School of Management
we have a responsibility
to teach ethics writ large,
not just in specific
topical areas.
And so I think it
nevertheless falls to us
to think about how we
incorporate discussions
of the ethics of climate
change, especially
as it impacts business
decision making into cases.
And there are some
terrific courses
offered in the school that are
focused more on sustainability.
But I think there
is an opportunity
to actually broaden that focus
on ethics and ethics of climate
change where it makes sense
into some of the more, I guess,
shall we say the core or
the more general management
courses.
Yes, John.
So I'll just add to that.
So I want to broaden
the humanistic approach
to include creative production,
so artistic and literate.
So when I started
talking to-- when
my executive director,
Amanda Graham, and I started
talking about the five
schools' involvement
in the Environmental
Solutions Initiative,
the second dean that we
went to see-- the first dean
was my dean of architecture,
and that's my department,
so I couldn't avoid him.
But the second dean,
right away to go see,
was the Dean of the School of
Humanities, Arts and Social
Sciences.
And that was very
purposeful, because I
think we understand very
well the science, challenges,
the engineering solutions,
and the planning
and design proposals possible.
But I think sometimes
we don't talk
enough about how artistic
literate literature has
had a huge role in
changing collective beliefs
and directing a willingness
to act as a society.
And so that's very,
very much what
we want to engage central
to this new initiative.
And the other part
of it is just what
we've all gone through today.
We're humans.
And we perceive
risk and we mitigate
risk in very complicated ways.
And that's a humanistic
study, very much,
and that's actually in some
sense what this is about,
and maybe why we are in
the pickle that we're in.
OK.
So the next question addresses
an issue that several of us
brought up over the
course of the day,
particularly Justin
Gillis, which
is that there are fairly
well documented campaigns
of disinformation on
the issue of climate
with lots of money
pouring into it.
And there are many MIT faculty
who, as individual faculties,
have tried to do what
we can to combat that.
But the question
from the questioner
is, is there something--
is there anything
that MIT can do at the
institutional level
to combat disinformation
in general?
I think the question was posed
in general, not necessarily
confined to the
issue of climate.
So I'm going to offer
some thoughts again.
So as part of the
climate action plan
but also our developing
strategic plan in ESI,
there is a nascent and
to be developed, but will
be developed, digital platform.
A resource, high quality,
rigorous resource
for providing the very best
information on climate change.
And again, I want
to say, broadening
to environmental
topics generally.
So how much of the
global urban population
is living with unhealthy air?
Topics like that.
So it is very much
part of what we
have in our portfolio of things
to do, sooner than later.
Part of that effort,
I just want to say,
is to coordinate a number of
different outgoing messages
from faculty and centers
and groups around MIT.
And there are a number
of distributed efforts
and possibly
coordinating and then
creating a really powerful
source of information
that would chip away
at disinformation.
That's just one.
I am not offering that
as the full solution.
I'm offering that as one
thing that we are ongoing.
Now, what I would like to
say, for any students who
would like to join us in
this, please get in touch.
I mean, this is something
we'd like to do right away.
While I completely agree
that MIT, of all places,
should have a centralized
place for good information
on climate change, I
think it's sometimes
very hard for any institution
to systematically go
after every time there's a
posting of misinformation.
But I can't imagine any
more powerful statement
that MIT could make about the
general disinformation that
tries to discount anthropogenic
climate change than if MIT
divested in fossil
fuel companies
and had their own climate
action plan that included a zero
emissions plan in line
with the city of Cambridge.
What powerful statements
would that make?
And if that were prominent
on their home page,
it would say MIT is putting
their money where their values
and where their science is.
I'd like to tie this
back to the point
that Justin made, though, about
the statement of principles.
In community situations, when
somebody who wants something
to happen starts
spreading rumors,
puts out information
about other people,
even brings lawsuits
against people
who are against what
they want to do,
and those people don't
have the same resources
and they don't have
the experience,
and the question is
how do they combat
what is a form of disinformation
at the local level.
And the issue is to try
to get more wide spread
discussion in which
everybody else can consider
the arguments on the merits.
And so, again,
the issue is do we
have a way of saying that
there's a set of principles
of good science of
ways of addressing
public policy in credible
ways that we stand for.
The issue isn't just to have
the counter information.
It's to say that that
information is derived
in a way, presented in a way,
is supported in a way that
violates certain principles.
And that what we
should stand for
is not just that we're
against that view,
but we stand for a
set of principles
about what makes
information valuable
for the public discourse.
OK.
Yeah.
The climate action plan that
came out last year from MIT
was, I think, a
very good first step
at combating misinformation.
Perhaps is there is
indeed more to be done.
There's always a fine line
in an academic institution,
of course, of saying,
well, here is the answer,
and you've got to be
carefully crafted.
And academic freedom is a
basic principle as well,
so I agree that we need to
combat misinformation and think
about ethics and
so on, but it's got
to be done very
carefully to make sure
that it doesn't set text
saying that MIT is saying what
the answer is, leaving
no leeway, particularly
in the area of
science and economics
that we're talking about.
There is still
room for new ideas.
OK.
Justin.
MIT has tremendous convening
power, as we call it now,
more than maybe you realize.
And particularly so
in corporate America.
So my thought
about this is there
may be kind of an
opportunity cost in spending
the institute's time and money
on the sort of, whatever it is,
10% of the population that's
just unmovable and conspiracy
minded on this topic.
You've got a lot of people
out there in corporate America
who don't understand
the science.
They haven't really
dug into the science.
And they particularly
don't understand
the business opportunity that's
in front of them right now,
the sort of money to be saved
by cutting emissions and cutting
their own energy use.
And they don't understand
how they would go about that.
They don't understand how to
do the math of these projects.
I mean, I could
see MIT convening,
sort of three or
four times a year,
kind of climate boot camp.
Educate the business
community of the United States
about this issue.
And then go beyond
that and help them
begin to figure out how do
they tackle it at ground level.
Let me just very
quickly interject
that part of MIT's climate
action plan is indeed to hold,
as they already do in other
spheres, a whole series of kind
of mini schools if you will,
here at MIT and in Washington,
for people like
congressional staffers,
just to bring them up to
speed on the climate science.
Not political, not advocacy,
just where's the science at.
So I think we're at least
planning to do that.
And I'm sure that will happen.
Does anybody else want
to address this issue?
So here's an
interesting question.
As a student caring
about climate change,
should I spend my time
working in the lab
or marching in the
streets, or both?
So I'm going to start by
saying I have great respect
for students who are expressing
their views in ways that
previous generations
maybe haven't.
And I really do appreciate that.
I wish the activism of sitting
in a corridor were more active.
And I say that very from a
very personal point of view.
Amanda Graham and
I with the ESI,
we are traveling
1,000 miles a minute,
trying to launch a whole
slate of initiatives,
from the environmental
sustainability minor,
to new research,
to bridging student
life and the academic
world here at MIT.
And so again, I
mean I'm not going
to say-- I'm not going
to answer to the student
where they should
spend their time,
but I would just wish that
a student who is here at MIT
would take advantage of the
extraordinary opportunities
to actually activate
their intellect
and use their hands
for issues that they
are very passionate about.
And if you are one
of those students
and you're interested in doing
that, please come see me.
Valerie.
So, I would encourage students,
I think, first and foremost,
to do that first
rate work that is
going to get you
noticed and potentially
on the front page of
the New York Times.
And that will get you more
attention to your cause
and also to your fantastic
research and to MIT
than spending your time
out marching in a crowd.
I'm not saying that's not
worthwhile, but I just--
when you think about the causes
that you're choosing to support
and how you support them,
you want to be discerning.
Your time is valuable.
And you have a lot to contribute
both in and outside of the lab.
I do have a very different
perspective on this question.
I think when students from
MIT get involved in activist
causes, they often
play a leadership role
in providing the
rationale for that action
and for helping people learn
from and reflect on the action
that they're taking.
And that's a separate and
different body of knowledge
that people should be working
to acquire that goes side
by side with the scientific,
technical, social scientific,
or design knowledge
that they have.
I'm not-- it's the language
of "marching in the street"
seems to me to trivialize the
notion of people committing
to taking action on
behalf of the environment.
And when they do that
in a thoughtful way,
it completely can change
their own understanding
of why they're spending their
time in the classroom, what
they're going to do
with that knowledge,
and they can be helping to
sharpen with all the people
that they're working
with or taking action
with the rationale for
what they're doing.
So I am not buying
the dichotomy.
Yeah, I would agree, actually.
And maybe just quickly
to add to that,
the leadership
piece is certainly
one of the most
important things that you
can do outside of the
lab, in whatever capacity.
So you can do both in
this, because we have
a different street nowadays.
It's not necessarily the
physical street out there.
It's a e-street,
and our students--
the students in
my own laboratory,
actually, I know are heavily
engaged in that broader
discussion that one of the last
speakers was talking about.
You need to get into that sphere
and have your expertise known.
That's what I would
encourage of all students.
Make the difference
in the real world,
and then get it
the heck out there.
OK.
I think we'll go to one
last question, which
is an interesting
one that was raised
by our committee in
its report to MIT,
but we didn't perhaps go
into it in enough depth is,
is there a point to
MIT collaborating
on the institutional
level-- I interpret
with other universities--
in addressing this issue?
Ron.
Why not?
As a scientist, I
do collaborations
with other universities and
labs and so on around the world.
We should collaborate,
of course.
We can't do everything here.
But we can have the leadership
here for some certain things
[INAUDIBLE] to do
it, but realize we
don't cover all of the bases.
And so consulting
and collaborating
with other institutions
is part of the natural way
a scientist does his work.
We don't have law here.
Right.
This conversation is active.
So I was reminded by
Professor [INAUDIBLE]--
I don't know if he's here-- that
Harvard and MIT had a very well
renowned, very
influential water program.
And that's lapsed.
So the proof of concept
is very well proven.
I mean, it's absolutely
something that we-- clearly we
don't have law, we
don't have other fields
that are part of the
consideration of climate.
What I would like to
put a note in that
we have different kinds
of collaborations.
And I would love to see us be
collaborating with universities
in Africa in a way that was
being discussed last year,
but that hasn't yet happened,
around these issues.
And in part, because-- and
everyone accepts the fact
that it's not symmetrical.
And there is a part of our
work to build the university
capabilities elsewhere,
and then have students
from there come here and
then our students go back
and help populate
faculties there.
And we've done that in
many places over the years.
This seems to be an issue
in particular, where
international university
collaboration, not
amongst the usual
suspect schools,
would have an
effect on the issues
that we care about in
a disproportionate way.
Valerie.
And exactly on that
theme, I think,
our five year
effort of engagement
between MIT and Tsinghua
University, which
calls itself the MIT
of China, has, I think,
proven that in the domain
of climate change and energy
analysis, at a systems level.
This was an effort
that was launched
within the joint program
on the Science and Policy
of Global Change.
Maybe Ron may talk about it as
well, but the idea behind this
was really to sit together in
the same location in Beijing
or in Boston or at
conferences around the world,
and develop articles, research
together, which takes time
and it takes difficult
conversations
about how to work out the
sharing of credit for that work
and how to present it,
who to present it to,
but it can be
tremendously rewarding.
And I think that's an area
where, that-- as one example,
I think there are many other
successful examples-- that I
think can serve MIT
well as it decides where
to put effort going forward.
Justin.
I'm going to try to
sneak in a last word
here as time runs out.
This Oxford Harvard
project that I mentioned
about what should the
standards of conduct
be for the fossil
fuel companies.
It is a mystery to me that MIT
is not even involved in that.
I don't understand why MIT
is not leading that effort.
They, the fossil companies,
Exxon Mobil in particular,
are using you as cover.
I know this for a fact
from having talked--
I mean, I heard this
from Exxon Mobil people.
Look.
Look at this project
we're funding up at MIT.
We're really engaged
in the climate problem.
If I were MIT, I'd want to
turn that around and say, OK,
as a condition of further
acceptance of your money, let's
talk about how we're
going to get from A to Z.
If it's quick, Ron.
Yeah.
No, it is going to be quick.
I just wanted to
return to this issue
of collaborating with other
institutions in particular.
MIT is leading the world.
We're building a big
climate observatory
very high in in Rwanda.
And at the same time, a
new master's degree program
in atmospheric and
climate science
is beginning right now in the
University of Rwanda in Kigali.
That, multiplied many other
times with other faculty,
is the sort of thing that
naturally comes to MIT faculty
and to faculty at
other universities.
So we should certainly do that,
and my impression of Africa--
because I've done a lot of
work over the past five years
in developing this
project-- is that they
are really receptive to learning
about the issue of climate
change.
They know they're
going to be affected.
They want to know how to adapt.
And the very best way to do it
is collaboration at that level.
At the climate
observatory, I'm very
proud to say one of my
doctoral students is a Rwandan.
And he's doing his
PhD degree measuring
carbon dioxide and methane at
this observatory right now.
Thanks.
OK.
I'm going to wrap up this panel
with a final question that's
rhetorical and requires no
response from the panel.
Could MIT send a strong
message to society
by moving its campus
to higher ground?
And with that, let's thank
this very distinguished panel
for their contribution.
And so, now I'd like to
turn back to our department
chair for closing remarks.
This is not the
end of the program
yet, so please if
you can be with us
for another 5 or 10 minutes,
that would be marvelous.
So me too.
I would like to thank the
panelists for the discussion.
I think it's unavoidable
and also understandable
that the panel was used also
to reflect back on the climate
conversation that we
had last year and also
the climate action plan by MIT.
But I would also remind
the audience, again,
that of course the scope
of today's symposium
was really to add on that and
to discuss climate science
in particular and the
role of basic climate
science in the kind of
actions that we took.
And much of the day, we've
seen beautiful examples
of that about the
science that we do
and focusing on what we
know about the things
that we don't know,
the uncertainties,
and what kind of things we
would like to know better.
And in terms of
wrapping up today,
I would like to invite
Erik Grimson, who I'm very
pleased to introduce to you.
Eric couldn't be here all day.
He just came back in, and
I very much appreciate it.
Eric, for those of you
who don't know him,
he's a professor in computer
sciences and engineering.
And he's also the holder of
data Bennett Gordon chair
in medical engineering.
And he's here to
effectively wrap up today
as a senior
administrator for MIT,
as the chancellor of
academic advancement.
Eric, glad could make it.
Thanks, Robert.
I'm between you and
heading for the exit,
so I will make this short.
On behalf of President Reif, I'm
very pleased both to thank you
all for coming today and offer
a few closing remarks to wrap up
what's I know been a very
fascinating program on MIT's
opportunity and responsibility
in making climate science
the basis for climate
action locally, nationally,
and globally.
I want to start by expressing
appreciation to EAPS--
I was going to say the
Department of Earth Atmospheric
and Planetary Sciences.
It does not need
that explanation--
for planning and hosting
this important symposium.
For decades, EAPS
has been a leader
in pioneering basic research
on climate, and many of you
know it well from Edward
Lawrence, namesake
of the Lawrence
Center and EAPS, whose
work laid the foundation
for chaos theory,
to Nobel Prize winner
Mario Molina who discovered
that fluorocarbons were to blame
for the Antarctic ozone hole,
to Jule Charney, the father
of modern meteorology, who
chaired that seminal
1979 NRC committee
report on global warming.
I think MIT and EAPS
boast a very proud legacy
of pioneers in climate science.
And we're very pleased for that.
As is clear from this
symposium, that legacy
continues to grow in both
climate science and climate
action.
You've had a chance
to hear today
from many of today's
thought leaders on climate,
eminent researchers
from across MIT who've
shared their work, their
insights, and their passion
with you, clearly demonstrating
that climate science at MIT
is alive, well, and sowing the
seeds for innovative thinking
and action.
Perhaps you, like me, are
struck by the complexity
of this challenge and the
sophistication of the efforts
to understand what is going
on, why it's happening,
and what we can and
should do in response.
And if ever there's
been a global need
for innovative
cross-disciplinary research
and cooperative action
grounded in basic science,
surely this is it.
Sadly, as you also heard,
and I'm sure you know well,
the relationship between climate
science policy and action
is far more nuanced
than is generally
portrayed in public
discourse, certainly in the US
during an election year.
And MIT does have a
clear responsibility
to lead by example.
To quote Maria Zuber,
who I understand
you heard from this
morning, "creating knowledge
through basic
scientific research
and effectively
translating that knowledge
into appropriate action through
engineering, technology,
and social innovation."
I think that's what MIT
has to offer to the world.
Indeed it's something
that MIT has
done for decades
in climate science
and in many other disciplines.
And as many of you
know, that combination
of both discovering
foundational knowledge
and bringing it to bear on
the world's great challenges
is embedded in our mission
statement and underlies so many
of MIT'S contributions to
the world over the decades,
including past, current, and
future contributions in climate
science and climate action.
While the scale and complexity
of this challenge is great,
I cannot help but feel
incredibly encouraged by how
faculty in EAPS, and indeed
across all five schools,
as we've heard today, are
now really working across
traditional disciplinary
boundaries to connect the dots
and bring basic scientific
research and data to bear
on discussions of everything
from the social and economic
risks of climate change, to the
impacts of future environmental
and energy policy, to
the promise and the peril
of technological innovation
and what it will take, finally,
to motivate real
action on climate.
MIT has a vital role
to play in this effort,
and we're poised to lead the way
with the help of all the people
you've heard from today in
shaping informed climate
action at every scale
from local to global.
And I have no doubt
that today's symposium
will generate new
collaborations,
as you just heard from
in this last panel.
And I look forward to
watching those efforts evolve.
As the Institute
embarks on its five year
plan for action
on climate change,
as I'm sure you're aware,
we are prioritizing
five areas of climate action.
In addition to
creating new centers
to accelerate low carbon
energy technologies,
enhanced support for
basic climate research
will be a top priority.
We are also committed to
providing our students
with the knowledge
and tools they
will need to continue the
charge into the next generation
and to strive to reduce and
mitigate the impacts of climate
change globally,
nationally, and as you
heard, right here on campus.
At its core, our plan aims
to enhance the coordination,
cohesion, and impact
of all work on climate
from across the
Institute in science,
in engineering, in planning,
in policy, and in business.
And I think today's symposium
has been a great step
in moving that forward.
So again, I want to thank
all of you for coming today,
both in person and those
watching online, our speakers,
our scientists, our engineers,
our students, our staff,
our alumni, and our friends
for your participation
and your partnership here.
Indeed, it's going to take
all of us acting together
with enduring commitment
to tackle the climate
challenges before us.
And I hope we can all be
champions for prudent climate
action grounded in basic science
as we work towards what MIT has
always strived to do, which
is make the world a better
place for all of us.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Eric.
So I have very little
to add to that,
except to make a few
acknowledgments here.
So what we've heard
today was, I think,
a very exciting program
in terms of the science
and some of the action
plans in the implementations
by some of the leaders at MIT.
I would be remiss to not
mention the students, of course,
and the post-docs that
work on these things.
And I think John
Fernandez mentioned
very well and repeatedly
that one of the best
and maybe most important
aspects of the solutions
is indeed education.
It's such an important topic.
And I think it's very important
that the students that we train
here at MIT, many
of them will end up
in leaders in
academia or government
or private
corporations that they
know a thing or two about
climate change and climate
science in general.
And so education, I think, is
a very important aspect indeed.
I would like to take
this opportunity
to thank a few institutions
and centers and people.
First of all, even though
it was mentioned here,
I would like to mention
it very explicitly
the support that we had for
this to make this symposium
possible for the Halton fund
of the Department of Earth
Atmospheric and
Planetary Sciences,
and also in particular
the Lorenz Center, which
is co-directed by Kerry
Emanuel and Dan Rothman,
here in the audience.
And that's a center
that is working
on finding fundamental
research in climate science,
working across the
boundaries of the departments
and schools at MIT.
I would like to
thank a few people.
There's many people, of
course, behind the organization
of a day like this.
Many, many, many people indeed.
The two people that I would
like to single out that are here
are our senior development
officer Angela Ellis,
sitting in the back, who
has done major work to make
this work happen.
Thank you.
And also, sitting next to her,
Kurt Sternlof, who has not only
been very helpful
today, but also
in the last couple of
months, organizing this.
Kurt thank you very,
very much for this.
Of course, I would like to
thank the speakers, again.
We've thanked them already.
But I would love to
take this opportunity
to thank them again, not
only for the inspiring
presentations they gave today,
but more importantly for just
the work that they do, here at
MIT and work on the research
that they do engaging
with students
and helping this scientific
enterprise moving along.
I would like to thank the
sponsors that we have.
In addition to Lorenz
Center and Halton,
many of you in the audience
have been very generous donors
to MIT and in many cases to
climate science in particular.
And I really thank
you very much,
in particular, on behalf
of all the students
that benefit from
fellowships, for example.
And finally, I want to thank
all of you here in the audience
and anywhere in the United
States and abroad via webcam
to having been with
us in so large numbers
and even at the end the day.
It's a quarter past
five now, and we still
have a pretty packed
auditorium here.
I thank you very much.
I hope you find it
all very exciting.
I encourage you to stay
engaged with MIT and of course
with our department
in particular.
If you want to have
any more information,
then come to see me or
Angela or go to our website.
So thank you very
much, and I hope
if you come from far you
have very good travels back.
Reminds me to thank Marcia
McNutt in particular
as a speaker to come all
the way in particular
for this symposium
from California,
and Jules from New York.
So thanks very much, and I
hope you have a very good day.
