MIT Campus
Climate Change Impacts
MIT alumni community in the Boston area
Out of over 170,000 MIT alumni in total, 12,575 live within 50 mile radius of Boston, and 22,576 live in the state of Massachusetts. These alumni like other residents are affected by the direct impacts of climate change in the area. Among the impacts are: (1) air pollution from wildfires promoted by widespread droughts in North America which have many serious health impacts on outdoor workers, the elderly and immunocompromised, and children; and (2) regular flooding from both more intense storms with increased precipitation and progressive sea level rise.
Potential flooding in the Boston area
Studies have found Boston to be one of the most vulnerable to seal level rise, in the top five according (e.g. see this from Zillow). This study found that 4.3% or over 50 thousand homes in the metro area will be potentially underwater by 2100. According to NOAA's Seal Level Rise Viewer (above), many areas of Boston, including the MIT campus in Cambridge will be experiencing frequent flooding. See the NOAA tool here. The Washington Post also recently published an article highlighting floods on Boston harbor and other areas.
MIT Climate Action Plan recommendations
Submitted to MIT administration in 2020
Statement of Purpose
We write as members of MIT Alumni for Climate Action,
a nonpartisan group of alumni who are concerned about the devastating
effects of climate change. A group within MIT Alumni for Climate Action
analyzed MIT’s 2015 Plan for Action on Climate Change and developed
recommendations for the next iteration of the plan. We have been
inspired by MIT's commitment to the climate issue expressed in President
Reif's 2015 letter to all alumni and his lecture at the 2020 Alumni
Leadership Conference. As proud alumni of the world’s leading research
university, we present these preliminary recommendations to the MIT
administration and the MIT Climate Action Advisory Committee to initiate
a discussion of our future role in solving one of the world's most
serious problems. This letter illuminates certain gaps in MIT’s 2015
Climate Action Plan and outlines our vision for the 2020 Plan for Action
on Climate Change. This letter does not provide an exhaustive list of
all of our suggestions but highlights the most crucial actions that we
believe MIT takes to abate climate change. We look forward to initiating
a dialog with MIT and participating in the discussions that this letter
sparks among the MIT community to help retain MIT’s Climate leadership.
In the last 5 years, climate change has become a crisis as natural
disasters have accelerated, and the IPCC called for cutting emissions by about
half in this decade to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The next 5
years as we all know will be crucial to setting the course towards limiting warming
to 1.5°C.
Since MIT released its original Plan for Action on Climate Change in 2015, climate disasters have made the urgency of action apparent: the worst-ever 2020 wildfire season in Australia, South America, and Western US; severe droughts in East Africa in 2017 and again in 2019; deadly floods in South Asia that left a third of Bangladesh under water this past summer; and 6 years of drought in Central America’s Dry Corridor offer a preview of the climate crisis to come. The 2018 IPCC report on the impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C calls for cutting net anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030 and reaching net zero around 2050. Already, the global average surface temperature has risen nearly 1°C relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. Global carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise and the window to limit global warming to 1.5°C is closing fast. Meanwhile, the current U.S. administration has stalled climate progress in the U.S. by rolling back environmental regulations and globally by withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. COVID-19 has raised the stakes: the choices that leaders make for long-term economic recovery will chart our economic course for the next decade. Continuation of current policies is expected to result in upwards of 1-3 billion climate refugees in the next 50 years. In such a critical environment, it’s imperative that MIT takes action by increasing its own commitment to climate change and leadership in at least the following areas.
Commit to develop plans for carbon neutrality by 2030 and a zero-emissions campus by 2040. Institution Carbon Neutrality Commitment Date Institution Carbon Neutrality Commitment Date Harvard University 2050 Brown University 90% of Fossil Fuel investments divested Stanford University University of Pennsylvania Yale University Columbia University Reduced 35% by 2020; have aggressive plans for 2030 Princeton University Northwestern University Cornell University Moratorium on Fossil Fuel Investments Dartmouth University University of Chicago Duke University MIT
should also begin planning to achieve a zero-emissions campus by 2040.
The vast majority of campus emissions reductions to date have been
achieved through emissions offsets, namely by financing the Summit Farms solar array
in North Carolina. While this net reduction is commendable, the 2040
global net zero ambition limits the long-term role of renewable energy
credits. Eventually, MIT must operate without greenhouse gas emissions
and should develop a plan for on-campus clean energy generation
projects, energy neutral buildings, zero emissions transportation on
campus, and other changes to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. MIT’s
lead in implementing these changes will clear the way and provide
valuable insights for other large institutions to develop zero-emissions
campuses. Already, a plan
has been submitted through Climate Colab for MIT to eliminate its
building emissions completely and to do so effectively free. We think
the 2020 plan is a great opportunity to set forth a goal for full campus
(facilities & operations) decarbonization by 2040.
MIT
originally committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 32 percent
from a 2014 baseline by 2030 and has reduced net emissions by 24 percent
so far. This commitment is not commensurate with the IPCC’s stated need
for a 45 percent net reduction from a 2010 baseline by 2030. MIT should
exceed this global goal by committing to net zero greenhouse gas
emissions by 2030. Already, American University
became the first university in the U.S. to achieve carbon neutrality in
2018, and many of our peer institutions have committed to carbon
neutrality before the middle of the century, as shown in the table
below. MIT should draw on its formidable technical expertise and that of
its alumni to forge the path to carbon neutrality for large research
institutions by 2030.
Develop
clear standards for any type of relationship with fossil fuel
companies, including policies of accepting funding. These metrics will
prevent fossil fuel companies from using their relationship with MIT to
conceal their environmentally destructive actions. *While the metrics for each company may vary, the following list provides an example:
Some fossil fuel companies “greenwash” their public reputation by sponsoring research, buildings, and other academic activities at respected universities like MIT. At the same time, these companies have failed to align their own practices with the Paris Agreement, spread climate disinformation, and spent millions lobbying
against climate legislation. As a prominent research university, MIT
should develop and publish clear standards for engagement (i.e.
collaboration, accepting funding for research and capital projects, and
other partnerships) with such fossil fuel companies that promote
transparency, accountability and commitment to a shared purpose in
minimizing their environmental footprint.
For example, MIT’s
advice to fossil fuel companies as they transition to a carbon-free
business model is appreciated and should be further encouraged. A
successful transition would reduce GHG emissions and increase the
likelihood that MIT could continue to receive funds from the fossil fuel
companies. MIT should also ensure that new business models do not
contribute to the problem of plastic pollution, which disproportionately
harms
developing countries. These advisory relationships should be contingent
upon the companies transparently tracking their transition toward
fossil-free operations and meeting MIT’s stringent benchmarks*. Any
fossil fuel company that fails to make a good-faith effort to accomplish
these goals and meet their benchmarks should be taken off MIT’s
relationship list.
____________________
For
those fossil fuel companies that hinder the transition to a carbon-free
economy by spreading climate disinformation and lobbying against
climate legislation, MIT should immediately divest its endowment.
Institution Divestment Commitment Institution Divestment Commitment Brown University Columbia University Coal only Cornell University Johns Hopkins University Georgetown University London School of Economics Coal and tar sands only University of California Stanford University Coal only University of Cambridge Full (by 2030) Yale University University of Oxford - -
Beyond
accepting direct funding from fossil fuel companies, MIT should not bet
against the transition to a carbon-free economy by investing its
endowment in fossil fuel companies that resist this transition. These
investments are antithetical to MIT's commitment to address causes and
propose solutions to climate change. Already, six peer institutions of
MIT have fully divested from fossil fuels, and five more have divested
from coal and/or tar sands, as shown in the following table.
Additionally,
these investments also pose a financial risk. In 2018, the oil and gas
sector placed last in the S&P 500 following nearly a decade of poor stock performance. Clean power stocks also weathered the COVID shock better
than fossil fuel stocks. If the transition to a decarbonized economy is
successful, these stocks will face even more drastic losses as fossil
fuel assets become stranded. MIT should divest from fossil fuel
companies that prevent climate action and invest its endowment in a
decarbonized future.
MIT’s establishment of the eight Low-Carbon Energy Centres (LCECs) and raising of $300 million over 5 years are commendable. It however needs to demonstrate a tangible impact via solutions that the industry can quickly adopt, e.g., across Solar PV, Energy Storage, Carbon Sequestration, Electric Power, Nuclear Energy, Clean Energy and Fuel Cells.
Membership is currently at 25 and can be enhanced further. The consortia research is currently limited to Mobility and Utility. We have limited information on the vitality of these LCECs, in terms of staffing and funding. There is no visibility on the progress of a 2°C roadmap study either. We need transparency on how MIT will continue to lead the charge and make its commitment stronger to develop new technologies via these LCECs.
MIT has issued a climate grand challenge. We are supportive of this endeavor given its potential to address difficult and impactful research problems related to climate change (mitigation, adaptation or quantification of climate risk). We look forward to its fruition and are open to support in any way possible.
Currently, the institute has begun this effort to enhance climate education and awareness via the Environment and Sustainability Minor
and the online Climate Change and Sustainability credential through
MITx. MIT’s educational offering needs to be reinforced in terms of the
scope and extent of subject-matter coverage.
MIT should
incorporate a holistic understanding of the climate crisis into all of
its undergraduate programs and ensure that all programs prepare
graduates for the role that their field will play in addressing the
climate crisis. For example, MIT could consider an introductory course
on climate change as a general education requirement or elective, and
can offer advanced courses within each department that build on that
foundation and explore unique technology solutions through the various
disciplines.
Further, MIT’s education efforts and influence could
extend to industry sectors where professionals need continuing
education to maintain their expertise, licensure or status. For example,
the Engineers that design and build Energy Systems Electrification for
buildings need to be trained to ensure faster adoption of Clean Energy
systems. The window is narrow as most HVAC and Building equipment
upgrades are done once every 20 years. MIT could build educational
programs that aspire to promote uniform adoption across different
jurisdictions.
New climate technologies will create a new
landscape of jobs and opportunities for growth in the economy. As for
previous disruptive technologies that MIT has primed its students for,
MIT will also have the responsibility to ready the workforce with
appropriate skills to take on these new and exciting roles.
We are proud to be alumni of the world’s leading research university and believe that our alma mater has a crucial role in the global effort against climate change. We envision MIT as a climate innovator among universities and research institutions, leading through its unparalleled research activities, operations and relationships with industry partners. In order for MIT to fulfill this role, the 2020 Plan for Action on Climate Change must be more ambitious than the last. The suggestions outlined in this letter are the most important actions we believe that MIT can take over the next 5 years to make a meaningful impact in climate change. We look forward to dialoguing with the community and offering our expertise to explore how these suggestions can be realized in earnest.
The following members endorsed these recommendations:
Liliana Pimentel, SPURS/DUSP - Fulbright Hubert H. Humphrey Fellow 2012/13 Shiladitya DasSarma, PhD, 1984 Tamara Shapiro Ledley, PhD, 1983 Arlis Reynolds, Class of 2006 Rick Clemenzi, Class of 1981 Britton Ward, MS 1996 Trevor Spreadbury, Class of 2020 Henning Colsman-Freyberger, Class of 1996 Chuan-Fu Wu, PhD 1988 Jonathan Sampson, Class of 2020 David Berney Needleman, PhD 2016 Leandra Zimmermann, Class of 2019 Vivian Song, Class of 2020 Margaux Filippi, ScD, 2019 Wilbur Li, Class of 2020 Peter Bryn, Class of 2007
Donald Rea, Class of 1954 Ph.D.
Andrea McGimsey, BS, 1987
Karen Plaut Berger, PhD, 2000
Bruce Parker, BS '69 and MS '70
Andrew Gregg, Class of 2004
Laurie Helller, Class of 1987
Christianna Raber, Course 4 - Class of 2004
Michael Mavrovouniotis, PhD, 1989
John R Dabels, Class of 1979, Sloan Fellow
José Luis del Valle Doblado, S.M.'78, Nucl.E.'78
James Adelstein, Class of 1948
Aaron Ucko, '00, M.Eng. '01
Mei Wan, Sloan MMFin Class 2021
Claire Halloran, Class of 2020
Susan Murcott, MIT, Course 1. S.B.1990, S.M.1992
LeNore Kerber, SB 1987, SM 1988
John Mark Ettinger, Class of 1987
Priya Giri, MBA - Sloan Fellows Class of 2013
Susan Udin, BS 1969, Phd 1975
Laura Liao, Class of 2020
Michael Laird, Class of 1969, Sloan MBA 1972
Brian P. Murphy, Naval Engineer & MSME 2000, MS Ocean Systems Mgmt. 2004
Tung Nhu Nguyen
Chuan-Fu Wu, PhD, 1988
Avital Baral, Class of 2020
Matthew Bruchon, TPP 2013
Shyamadas Banerji, SB 64, SM 65
Fen Labalme, 1981
Thomas J Hirasuna, 1976, SB Courses X and VII-A
Jeremy Poindexter, PhD 2018
Ronald Agronin, Class of 1960
William C. Sandberg, Sc. M. 1970
Jillian James, S.B. 2010, S.M. 2016
October 29, 2020
VPR Maria Zuber Update on MIT's Climate Action Plan - Spring 2019
- President Rafael Reif Boston Globe OpEd - April 2020
- MIT Alumni Leadership Conference Climate Change Panel - September 2020
- MIT Architecture and Planning Climate Plan - January 2021
- MIT Sustainability Initiative
- MIT Energy Initiative
- MIT Climate Portal
MIT Faculty Divestment letter
- MIT Divest Petition on Fossil Fuel Companies
- Opinion: MIT's Climate Inaction Plan
- Opinion: Prioritize people over pollution
- Opinion: Faculty in Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement
- Opinion: Have we reached a tipping point?
- Article: Colonization of Academia