Loading Events

« All Events

  • This event has passed.

International Conference on Inequality and Sustainability

November 9, 2012 - November 10, 2012

Co-hosted by the Stockholm Environment Institute and CIERP
Visit the conference website for more information and register.

Debates over equity—the fair distribution of resources, costs, and benefits—and a closely related topic, economic inequality, have arisen in the wake of the recent financial crisis. The gap in wealth and income between those who came out well after the crisis and those who did poorly has been widely noted. However, in a longer view this can be seen as part of a much broader debate in which conflicting normative goals raise troubling questions, complicated by uncertainties over how societies and economies do and should work. If we are to build a prosperous society, does inequality do more to help or hinder the pursuit of that goal? As we simultaneously seek an equitable and just society, then what level of inequality is consistent with an equitable outcome?

The pursuit of a sustainable society raises further questions. Sustainability implies a normative goal of inter-generational equity, and some have argued that lessened inequality and increased equity may be preconditions for a successful transition onto a sustainable path. At this conference we will look at equity and inequality through the lens of sustainability and, conversely, at sustainability from the point of view of equity and inequality.

The conference aims to bring together sustainability, equity, and inequality researchers to learn from one another about the current state of the art in their respective fields, and to think creatively about the intersections of these fields and the application of these important concepts to development policy debates.

Details

Start:
November 9, 2012
End:
November 10, 2012
Event Category:

Venue

Cabot Intercultural Center
Tufts University, Medford, MA United States

3 Comments

  • 1
    March 13, 2013 - 5:04 am | Permalink

    F*ckin’ tremendous things here. I’m very happy to see your article. Thanks so much and i am taking a look forward to contact you. Will you kindly drop me a mail?

  • 2
    March 13, 2013 - 7:26 am | Permalink

    Thanks for the publish. I have usually seen that a majority of people are desirous to lose weight as they wish to appear slim in addition to looking attractive. Nevertheless, they do not always realize that there are many benefits just for losing weight additionally. Doctors declare that over weight people are afflicted with a variety of diseases that can be perfectely attributed to their excess weight. Fortunately that people that are overweight and suffering from various diseases are able to reduce the severity of their own illnesses by losing weight. You possibly can see a continuous but noticeable improvement with health when even a minor amount of fat loss is accomplished.

  • 3
    May 14, 2013 - 10:23 pm | Permalink

    New Socialism Planning Heist In Copenhagen
    By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
    Posted 12/10/2009 06:45 PM ET

    In the 1970s and early ’80s, having seized control of the U.N. apparatus (by power of numbers), Third World countries decided to cash in. OPEC was pulling off the greatest wealth transfer from rich to poor in history. Why not them? So in grand U.N. declarations and conferences, they began calling for a “New International Economic Order.”

    The NIEO’s essential demand was simple: to transfer fantastic chunks of wealth from the industrialized West to the Third World.

    On what grounds? In the name of equality — wealth redistribution via global socialism — with a dose of post-colonial reparations thrown in.

    The idea of essentially taxing hard-working citizens of the democracies to fill the treasuries of Third World kleptocracies went nowhere, thanks mainly to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (and the debt crisis of the early ’80s). They put a stake through the enterprise.

    But such dreams never die. The raid on the Western treasuries is on again, but today with a new rationale to fit current ideological fashion. With socialism dead, the gigantic heist is now proposed as a sacred service of the newest religion: environmentalism.

    One of the major goals of the Copenhagen climate summit is another NIEO shakedown: the transfer of hundreds of billions from the industrial West to the Third World to save the planet by, for example, planting green industries in the tristes tropiques.

    Politically it’s an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man’s guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt.

    But the idea of shaking down the industrial democracies in the name of the environment thrives not just in the refined internationalist precincts of Copenhagen. It thrives on the national scale too.

    On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an “endangerment” to human health.

    Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means over a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises.

    (The EPA proposes regulating emissions only above 25,000 tons, but it has no such authority.)

    Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life.

    This naked assertion of vast executive power in the name of the environment is the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech President (and economist) Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism, i.e., the totemic ideal in the name of which government seizes the commanding heights of the economy and society.

    Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green. The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment.

    The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new class of experts, managers and technocrats. This time, however, the alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but saving the planet.

    Not everyone is pleased with the coming New Carbon-Free International Order. When the Obama administration signaled (in a gesture to Copenhagen) a U.S. commitment to major cuts in carbon emissions, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb wrote the president protesting that he lacks the authority to do so unilaterally. That requires congressional concurrence by legislation or treaty.

    With the Senate blocking President Obama’s cap-and-trade carbon legislation, the EPA coup d’etat served as the administration’s loud response to Webb: The hell we can’t. With this EPA “endangerment” finding, we can do as we wish with carbon. Either the Senate passes cap-and-trade, or the EPA will impose even more draconian measures: all cap, no trade.

    Forget for a moment the economic effects of severe carbon chastity.

    There’s the matter of constitutional decency. If you want to revolutionize society — as will drastic carbon regulation and taxation in an energy economy that is 85% carbon-based — you do it through Congress reflecting popular will. Not by administrative fiat of EPA bureaucrats.

    Congress should not just resist this executive overreaching, but trump it: Amend existing clean air laws and restore their original intent by excluding CO2 from EPA control and reserving that power for Congress and future legislation.

    Do it now. Do it soon. Because Big Brother isn’t lurking in CIA cloak. He’s knocking on your door, smiling under an EPA cap.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>