ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY GROUP Department of Urban Studies and Planning Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Newsletter
web.mit.edu/dusp/EPG/
December 2003
USGS Joint Fact Finding Project
11.941 Seminar Students Lay Groundwork Herman Karl erman Karl, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Western Geographic Science Center Chief Scientist, is a visiting faculty member through August 2004. He is offering with Prof. Larry Susskind a yearlong graduate student seminar, “The Use of Joint Fact Finding in Science-Intensive Disputes.” Seven doctoral and master’s candidates comprise the fall semester class. The students are helping to lay the ground work for a collaborative project with USGS and other partners that develops a joint fact finding approach to the controversial issue of placing wind turbines in shoal waters offshore Nantucket (Cape Wind project). The project will be part of the new USGS Science Impact program. This specific project is a vehicle to address the broader issue of collaborative approaches to offshore development of renewable energy sources. This aspect will be in coordination with the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) 4Cs Partnership and Collaboration Action Team, the core of which is comprised of two representatives from each of the eight DOI bureaus and co-chaired by senior DOI officials. Student papers will contribute to the inaugural volume of a joint USGS/MIT/Harvard Program On Negotiation working paper
H
continued on page 7
News and Views Larry Susskind
N
ews: EPG faculty are involved in a campus-wide effort to launch a project focused on City Reconstruction and Sustainable Resource Management in the Middle East. The first step is to inventory all of the efforts underway at MIT and Harvard that deal in any way with resource management or city reconstruction anywhere in the Middle East. Then, faculty and student staff will convene to review the inventory and think through what the long-term goals of a Middle East Center based at MIT might be. Larry Susskind and Frank Fisher (Professor of Economics) will lead the effort. Fisher’s primary interest is in Middle East water policy. Susskind is focused on resolving Bedouin land claims. The success of the project depends on fund-raising efforts currently underway and headed by Dr. Leonard Hausman, former director of Harvard’s Institute for Social and Economic Policy in the Middle East. EPG faculty and DUSP students are involved in the Mexico City Project, headed by Nobel-prize winner Professor Mario Molina and his wife, continued on page 8
Life at MIT Judy Layzer
Graduate Associates at CBI
A dozen friends and family members have asked me in the last three months: So howʼs the new job? My initial response is that Iʼm still an academic, so the basic parameters of my work life havenʼt really changed: I do my research and writing, think about future research, and work with students. But there is at least one way in which life at MIT differs dramatically from life at Middlebury, where I spent the first four years of my academic career. In the last three months, Iʼve had a series of serendipitous meetings with people—at MIT or in the surrounding community—who are doing the most amazing things; MIT is a place where you can, if you choose (in fact itʼs hard to avoid), have wonderful, thought-provoking interactions with people who are world leaders in their fields without leaving campus. These connections turn out to be incredibly rewarding, and not for the obvious, utilitarian reasons of professional networking but because they stimulate new thinking and learning. While students may regard faculty as “authorities” or “experts” in their field, for many of us the best thing about academic life is that it affords us the opportunity to continue our educations indefinitely.< EPG
December 2003
Since beginning the MCP program in September, EPG students Evan Freund and Jen Peyser have worked part-time as graduate associates at the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) in Cambridge. CBI is a not-for-profit organization serving public agencies, community groups and private sector clients worldwide by providing dispute resolution services, training in negotiation and consensus building techniques, and evaluative research. CBI specializes in environmental and natural resource management issues, as well as economic development and social service issues. At CBI, Evan and Jen have the opportunity to apply many of the principles addressed in their classes across DUSP. Evanʼs work this semester has included developing case studies on conflicts involving shared water and other natural resources in developing countries and creating a curriculum for CBIʼs “Workable Peace” program -- an initiative that teaches conflict management skills to middle and high school students through history curriculum. Jen is developing land use mediation and environmental justice training materials and has facilitated small groups at meetings about a facility siting in Florida and a Boston area schoolʼs participation in the Metco desegregation program. Both have enjoyed their experience and the opportunity to work on clientbased projects as a complement to their classroom studies.<
Politics of Air Pollution, Mexico City Tina Rosan Improving air quality in Mexico City requires that scientists and policymakers work together. While the science about what causes air pollution continues to improve, improving air quality in the Mexico City metropolitan area (MCMA) demands addressing institutional and political barriers to metropolitan cooperation. Politically, the MCMA is divided into different jurisdictions with their own needs and concerns. The Federal District and the State of Mexico often disagree about next steps for the region. From an environmental perspective, to be able to manage air quality there need to be coordinated reforms to transportation, landuse, environmental, and industrial policies. However, the ability to think and act at a metropolitan level in the MCMA is currently limited by the political structure of the MCMA. The work done by Drs. Mario and Luisa Molina and their team of US and Mexican researchers has demonstrated the complexity of the air pollution problem in Mexico City from a scientific and policy perspective. In the next phase of the Mexico City Project, the goal is to work with policymakers in the MCMA to discuss how they can develop a more sustainable and integrated plan for air quality improvement. In order to start a metropolitan dialogue, The Mexico City Project at MIT with the assistance of Dr. Page 2
Lawrence Susskind, Ford Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning at MIT and President of the Consensus Building Institute, is currently initiating an issue assessment in the MCMA to help identify areas of agreement and disagreement among different policy actors. The Issue Assessment is the first step in what will be a larger consensus building process aimed at helping stakeholders in the MCMA reach agreement on a technically desirable and politically plausible air pollution reduction strategy. Starting in January, a team of Mexican and U.S. researchers lead by Dr. Susskind, Dr. Luisa T. Molina, and two MIT doctoral students, Tina Rosan and Dong-Young Kim, will conduct face-to-face confidential interviews with a group of more than 50 representatives from all levels of government, citizen groups, NGOs, universities, and business. The researchers will summarize the concerns of members of key stakeholder groups on a range of air quality management issues, without attribution by name, title, or organization. The findings of these interviews will be analyzed and the opportunities for and obstacles to reaching agreement will be assessed. If appropriate, the Mexico City Project will help to design a consensus building process that will take place next year. The Issue Assessment will find out whether or not policymakers in the MCMA think the existing institutional arrangements to deal with environmental, transportaPage 3
tion, and land-use management are effective. It will also assess the likely benefits and costs associated with implementing stricter environmental regulations in the MCMA to reduce air pollution. The report will determine whether assisted negotiations, dialogue among the stakeholders that is assisted by a professional neutral, would likely lead to a constructive resolution of the institutional composition of metropolitan and environmental management in the MCMA. The final product
of the Issue Assessment will be a report that analyzes the issues, the stakeholders, their interests, their willingness and capacity to participate in negotiations, and their views on the issues requiring attention. One of the primary functions of the Issue Assessment is to produce changes in the way stakeholders view an issue like air quality management. The interview process gives those interviewed an opportunity to express their views, to raise concerns, and to directly shape any process that may ultimately emerge. It also forces them to clarify their concerns and encourages them to test their arguments “out loud”
in front of a neutral party. The goal of this activity in many ways is to start to “think about new options.” In the process of discussing their opinions about the way that the current institutional framework in the MCMA is designed, stakeholders may start to imagine different alternative solutions to the problems at hand. For almost 20 years, governments in numerous countries worldwide have been experimenting with the use of consensus building techniques and strategies. For example, the US Congress now requires every federal agency to explore all possible ways of incorporating “alternative dispute resolution” techniques for regulatory, planning, and enforcement activities. At the same time, some of the worldʼs largest corporations, such as IBM and Home Depot, have helped to sponsor consensus building efforts at the municipal, regional, state and national levels, on issues ranging from urban development, transportation, energy policy, and growth management and natural resources conflicts. Some of the worldʼs leading environmental activists and public interest organizations have also participated in consensus building processes, and are now advocates of the use of these techniques when the conditions are right. <
December 2003
EPG
New Water Interest Group Cat Ashcraft Considering the many general and specialized student interest groups within DUSP, and in the greater Harvard/MIT community, there is a notable absence of one focused on the unique characteristics of managing water. As water itself flows over boundaries, the issues involved in transboundary water management cut across DUSPʼs specializations, and across university disciplines. In order to explore these issues, a student interest group will meet starting spring 2004. This group will complement the sort of research that EPG emphasizes, namely research which links policy making and practice. While the group will determine its composition and focus once it convenes, preliminary planning discussions have centered on the following features: Focus The group will focus on practical applications of policy related to transboundary management of water resources. Composition The group will be composed of students representing different MIT departments, as well as students from nearby universities. In particular, students from Harvardʼs Kennedy School of Government have expressed interest in participating. Format The group will distribute selected readings and meet to EPG
December 2003
discuss them. If funding can be secured, speakers will be invited to present papers. Goal The group will plan to host a conference the following academic year focused on transboundary water management. Affiliation The group will explore opportunities to affiliate itself with national or international water institutions, such as the American Water Resources Association and the International Water Management Institute. Interested students contact Cat catcraft@mit.edu <
ties between our two cultures in the areas of environmental protection and community development. The U.S. and India present striking contrasts in population and settlement patterns that create compelling learning opportunities. For example, the U.S. population is roughly 80 percent urban and 20 percent rural, and India the reverse. India has over a billion people living on a land area roughly one-third the size of the U.S., whereas we have just shy of 300 million living on three times Indiaʼs land area. Notwithstanding these figures, Indiaʼs per capita consumption is a mere
India Three-Week Speaking Tour Bill Shutkin For three weeks beginning in late September, I traveled to the Republic of India, meeting with environmentalists, policy makers, business leaders, scientists, and academics and giving a series of lectures on sustainable development and environmental policy in five cities (Kolkata, Darjeeling, Delhi, Hyderabad, and Mumbai). My trip was organized by the U.S. State Department under the auspices of the consulateʼs cultural affairs speakers program. As someone who specializes in U.S. environmental law and policy, with limited international experience, my trip was transformative (and exhausting), opening my eyes to the many differences and similari-
fraction of ours. Meanwhile, Indiaʼs scientific and engineering capacity rivals that of many more developed nations, and its market economy is growing rapidly, suggesting some areas of convergence. Having met with a remarkable collection of close to 50 groups representing civil society, business, and government sectors, I learned a lot about the state of environmental policy and practice Page 4
in India; the nature and scale of the many challenges the nation faces in balancing environmental, social, and economic interests; and the variety of actors – individual and institutional – engaged in taking on these challenges. I found much in common, from the need for local capacity building for planning and policymaking, to a deep concern for declining stocks of natural resources, to a heightened interest in ecologically sensitive approaches to urban/rural planning and design. As I mentioned throughout my India tour, I consider the U.S., like India, to be a “developing” nation, a “developed” nation being one, in my view, that has stopped evolving, learning, and improving, one where stasis and torpor are the norm. Perhaps the U.S. is such a nation, but I prefer to think otherwise. In this spirit, I came away from my trip believing that those of us who consider ourselves deeply engaged in local places, be they in the U.S. or abroad, can and, more important, should share useful perspectives that would enhance each otherʼs understanding of what we do and how we do it.<
What's New Sarah Connolly, MCP2, and
former MIT Assistant Professor Dara OʼRourke have published an article, “Just Oil? The Distribution of Environmental and Social Impacts of Oil Production and Consumption” in the Annual Review of Environment Page 5
and Natural Resources. This timely review presents existing data and research on the global distribution of the impacts of oil production and consumption. The review describes and analyzes the environmental, social, and health impacts of oil extraction, transport, re-fining, and consumption, with a particular focus on the distribution of these burdens among socioeconomic and ethnic groups, communities, countries, and ecosystems. An environmental justice framework is used to analyze the processes influencing the distribution of harmful effects from oil production and use. A critical evaluation of current research and recommendations for future data collection and analysis on the distributional and procedural impacts of oil production and consumption conclude the review. The article is available at http: //energy.annualreviews.org
Erik Nielsen, first year PhD stu-
dent, will travel to China this December to conduct field research on how non-state environmental interests in Yunnan Province engage and influence the Provincial Governmentʼs decision-making over natural resource management. In January Erik will then travel to Bangkok, Thailand to facilitate a training course at the Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC) on community-based forest resource conflict management.
Henrik Selin, a Wallenberg
Post-doctoral Fellow in Environment and Sustainability, is continuing with his research and teaching in the area of international environmental policy-making and implementation. His latest research has looked specifically at regional climate change cooperation among the six New England states and the five Eastern Canadian Provinces, as well as efforts to reform chemicals management within the European Union. Recent publications include “All Talk, Little Action: Precaution and its Effects on European Chemicals Regulation” (Journal of European Public Policy 2004, 11(1): 78-105, together with Noelle Eckley); “Mapping Institutional Linkages in European Air Pollution Politics” (Global Environmental Politics 2003, 3(3): 14-46, together with Stacy VanDeveer); and “The Arctic at Risk: Arctic Pollution 2002” (Environment 2003, 45(7): 37-40, together with Noelle Eckley).
Dr. Tamar Trop, Lecturer and a
Senior Researcher at the Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning at the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, arrived on September to spend a one year post-doctoral fellowship at the department of Urban Studies and Planning at MIT. During this period she is affiliated with the Environmental Policy Group and participates in the groupʼs activities. Tamarʼs research is mainly in the fields of Nature Conservation, Landscape Ecology, Policy evaluation, and Regional Planning and Development. This semester she focused December 2003
EPG
on writing three papers: two about the Israeli policy for nature conservation and one about the Israeli public attitudes towards nature. She also started new research about the management of forest land in Israel and continued to supervise three graduate students in Urban Planning at the Technion.
Last summer, Masahiro Matsuura , PhD2, and Catherine Ashcraft , PhD1 worked together, under the supervision of Professor Susskind, on a joint-research project between RISTEX (a research institution in Tokyo, Japan) and the Consenus Building Institute to investigate the nature of cover-up incidents that were discovered last year in Japanese nuclear power plants. As a part of the project, a one-day workshop meeting was held on September 12, 2003 in Cambridge in order to understand why cover-ups had occurred and to discuss how they could be prevented, paying attention to the cultural and institutional differences between the US and Japan. Participants included experts from diverse nuclear backgrounds in the US and research staff from RISTEX and CBI. At the end of the meeting, US experts discussed a list of recommendations to the Japanese nuclear industry in the following four areas: possible industry-wide efforts, possible individual power company efforts, possible regulator/ government efforts, and public efforts. Professor Susskind will visit Japan in December 2003 to discuss implications from the EPG
December 2003
recommendations.
Masahiro Matsuura (PhD2)
has been reviewing theories relating to his home country, Japan, in order to understand how cultural and institutional factors affect the use of consensus building process in resolving public disputes in Japan. For example, it is often said that Japanese care about human relationships more than Westerners do, and this can make consensus building in Japan more difficult because stakeholders might be more reluctant to speak out their true interests in order to avoid offending other parties in the face-to-face deliberation. He is currently searching for a research partner in Japan who is interested in experimenting with the consensus-building process in order to examine the merits and difficulties of using it in real Japanese policy-making situations. <
EPG Graduate News Alexis Gensberg, Associate, Susan Podziba and Associates. Susan Podziba & Associates facilitated a negotiated rule making process to develop U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyʼs All Appropriate Inquiry Standard, which is required under the Small Business Liability Relief and Revitalization Act (Pub. L. No. 107-118), also known as the Brownfields Law. Consensus was reached on all
aspects of the regulation, which involved negotiations among twenty-five representatives of federal, state, county, local, and tribal government; for profit and not-for-profit developers; real estate and environmental attorneys; real estate brokers; bankers and lenders; environmental professionals; environmentalists; and environmental justice advocates. It is the first time U.S. EPA has used a negotiated rule making process in 8 years. Susan Podziba (MCP 1988, DUSP Visiting Lecturer, Lecturer 1996-2002) and Alexis Gensberg (MCP 2003) mediated the six months of negotiations, which concluded on November 14, 2003. The All Appropriate Inquiry Standard (AAI) sets out the elements of the environmental assessment required to determine the likelihood of contamination on a property. Performance of AAI is the first step toward liability protection for prospective purchasers of contaminated properties. It is also required of all municipalities receiving EPA Brownfields grants. Approximately 250,000 phase I assessments are conducted each year according to Environmental Data Resources. This number is expected to rise as more developers undertake brownfields redevelopment given the AAI standards and the liability protections offered under the Brownfields Law. For more information on the All Appropriate Inquiry Negotiated Rulemaking, go to http: //www.epa.gov/brownfields/ regneg.htm. < Page 6
USGS Join Fact Finding H. Karl (Continued from page 1) series, which will be published as an USGS online Bulletin. The students will present their papers at a workshop at USGS headquarters in Reston, VA this spring. A number of guests have participated in the seminar and two have given EPG luncheon talks. These guests, ranging from the chair of a local watershed council to senior policy officials in the Department of the Interior, have provided important insight based on everyday practical experience on how environmental policy decisions are made. Bennett Raley, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, U.S. Department of the Interior, was to initiate the guest series; he was unable to join the class at the last moment owing to critical water negotiations in California and has asked to reschedule his visit. Stan Ponce, USGS Senior Advisor for Partnerships and Business Policy, discussed the role of science in environmental policy with respect to the interior Columbia Basin. Michael Mery, chair of the Tomales Bay Watershed Council (Marin County, California) talked about how the council uses principles of consensus building to deal with everyday conflict in making decisions about land use in the watershed. Bob Alverts, USGS science advisor to the Western Region Biologist, and Christine Turner, USGS research geologist, discussed the Page 7
role of science in addressing the contentious issues in John Day, Oregon. Carl Shapiro, Senior Advisor to the USGS Director and coordinator of the Science Impact program, talked with faculty about one of the goals of the Science Impact program to implement joint fact finding projects. Bill Schwab, USGS Coastal and Marine Geology team chief at Woods Hole, Brad Butman, USGS oceanographer, and Brad Barr, Senior Policy Advisor, NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program, discussed with the class ecosystems management aspects of the proposed Cape Wind project, Bob Lamb, Senior Advisor for Policy, Management and Budget, U.S. Department of the Interior, drew upon his 35 years of government service to provide a career employee’s view of how environmental policy is set. Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget, U.S. Department of the Interior shared with us her views on the organic growth of communitybased stewardship groups and principles of shared governance that transcend political lines. Patrick Leahy, USGS Associate Director for Geology, gave examples of how a range of USGS research activities and products contribute to the Nation’s health and safety, and discussed with us the growing importance of taking a joint fact finding approach to helping frame research questions. Dave Russ, USGS Eastern Region Geologist, and two of his senior staff, Susan RussellRobinson and Jim McNeal, talked about the role that USGS could play in the Cape Wind contro-
versy and in providing strategic regional-scale baseline data for evaluating the impact of offshore development on the ecosystem and benthic habitat. Nicolas Rofougaran, who worked with Herman for a year as a National Research Council Research Associate, regularly attends the seminar and enriches the discussions with his experience. Other colleagues of Herman have visited MIT as a consequence of his appointment. Kathi Beratan, a researcher at the Duke Nicolas School of the Environment, presented an e-Planning seminar hosted by Prof. Pedro Ferraz de Abreu. Collectively these discussions have helped us as we develop a process that will engage scientists in a joint fact finding approach to environmental disputes. In addition to providing insight on the practical application of science to environmental policy, these guests also afford opportunities of interaction for EPG students and faculty. The seminar is serving as “neutral ground” to host a series of meetings with the disputants in the Cape Wind controversy for the purpose of beginning a dialogue on taking a collaborative process approach to seek a consensusbased decision on the issue. Mark Rodgers, Cape Wind Director of Communications, joined the class at the first meeting and presented the developer’s view. Future meetings will host opponents to development of a wind farm offshore Nantucket and government agencies involved in the NEPA process. If it is not possible at this time to put the current NEPA process on a collaborative process track, we will December 2003
EPG
develop a parallel track taking a collaborative approach during the spring semester. Our approach is in accord with the substance in recent memoranda from the DOI Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance providing guidance to the bureaus for implementing public participation and community-based training as part of NEPA analyses. This training will focus on section 101 and the productive harmony clause of NEPA that fosters an integrative and collaborative approach to the EIS process.<
News and Views Susskind (Continued from Page 1) Luisa. (See page3) This is a campus-wide effort to help the Mexican people deal with the serious problem of air pollution. After several years of work on the design and construction of an Integrated Assessment Model, the Project now begins the arduous effort of working with stakeholders and policy-makers to formulate and implement specific policies and institutional reforms required to address air quality issues in the Mexico City region. MIT’s Alliance for Global Sustainability – an interdisciplinary research consortium involving the leading technical universities around the world – is trying to find ways to make Knowledge Partnerships work. These are cooperative efforts involving universities, governments, corporations and civil society aimed at generating and implementing EPG
December 2003
new ideas that will move the world toward more sustainable patterns of development. With help from EPG faculty and students, more than 70 members of AGS’s technical advisory panel met in Cambridge to participate in a gaming simulation designed to highlight ways of making Knowledge Partnerships work. EPG faculty and students organized a workshop this fall to examine the cover-up in the nuclear industry in Japan and examine ways in which the risks associated with nuclear operations in the United States are managed. (See page 6) With participation from a prominent industry whistle blower, faculty from MIT’s Nuclear Engineering Department, and colleagues from Japan (the event was entitled Nuclear Safety: US – Japan Comparisons) produced a series of recommendations to the Society for Nuclear Risk Management in Japan.
V
iews: There are four is-
sues bubbling just beneath the surface in the Department. Several are probably of interest only to MCPs or PhDs, but two ought to be of interest to everyone. There is a debate brewing about the criteria DUSP uses for faculty hiring and promotion. There are current faculty who think we should make a special effort to attract and retain practice-oriented staff while there are others who think that only traditional academic (i.e. theory building) criteria ought to apply. The practice-oriented crowd (of which I’m part) argues that we are a professional school
that trains practitioners and if we don’t attach special significance to the field-based engagement and accomplishments of the faculty, we will not be able to teach what students come to DUSP to learn. The second issue concerns faculty advising. Frankly, there are members of the DUSP faculty who aren’t doing their fair share. Partly this is because they haven’t taken the time to “learn the system.” So, students gravitate to those who can give them the most useful advice. Partly, this seems to be a function of the incentive system in the Institute which offers no particular financial or other reward for dedicated advising. We don’t have clear norms regarding the amount of time faculty advisors are expected to devote to working with students on a weekly basis. Finally, in the absence of any pressure from the department administration, some faculty take the easy way out. The PhD Committee is considering ways of making the general exam system less onerous. One idea is to standardize general exams in the most popular first and second fields. The vast majority of DUSP doctoral students take first field exams, for example, in Public Policy, Economic Development and Urban and Regional Economics. Standardized exams in these fields could be offered once in the fall and once in the spring for any student wishing to take them. Each set of exams would be graded by the same faculty members guaranteeing greater fairness than the current system. A standardized reading Page 8
list would be circulated a year ahead. All of this would avoid the need for every doctoral student to prepare an exam proposal. This cut could as much as a semester off the time it takes for DUSP doctoral students to complete their generals.
newly admitted MCP student (assuming financial need can be demonstrated). Let the MCP Committee, PHD Committee or Department Head know where you stand on these issues.
It is time for the MCP commitLarry Susskind tee to reconsider the way DUSP < packages financial aid to newly admitted students. For the past few years, we have “bundled” our offers of aid into a few hefty (tuition plus stipend) awards to the “top” four or five students Bill with the co-directors of Indiaʼs new Green Business in each Centre, based in Hyderabad. This building is the first program outside the U.S. to receive a Platinum rating from the U.S. area. Most of the money * comes with no work requirement Students, faculty and staff in the of any kind. Other newly admitDUSP's Environmental Policy ted students are offered either Group are constantly redefinnothing or research assistantships ing the boundaries of research, which require 15 hours of work a week. This is necessary, the MCP teaching, and practice. We are so busy, though, that we do not decommittee has argued, so that we vote as much time as we should can enroll our top choice students to hearing about each other's (who will, otherwise, be offered work and accomplishments. better deals by our competition). We have initiated this informal As tuition increases and aid funds electronic newsletter so that we dry up, we should abandon this can build bridges to others in the practice. First, I’m not sure that Department, to EPG alumni, to the differences between the “top” colleagues in the world of pracfew students and the next set of tice, and most of all among the admittees on each group’s list are 40 or so active members of the important. I personally think it group. would make more sense to guar* antee at least half tuition to every Page 9
TO CONTACT THE FACULTY Lawrence Susskind Ford Professor of Urban Studies and Planning, EPG Head susskind@mit.edu JoAnn Carmin Assistant Professor of Environmental Policy jcarmin@mit.edu Herman Karl Visiting Lecturer hkarl@mit.edu David Laws Research Scientist, Lecturer dlaws@mit.edu Judith Layzer Assistant Professor of Environmental Policy jlayzer@mit.edu William Shutkin Lecturer. Environmental Policy shutkin@mit.edu Lyssia Lamb-MacDonald EPG Administrator lyssia@mit.edu Environmental Policy Group Department of Urban Studies and Planning, MIT 77 Massachusetts Ave., 9-312 Cambridge, MA 02193 Fax (617)253-7402 Phone (617)253-1509
VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT web.mit.edu/dusp/EPG/
December 2003
EPG