There is a kind of leadership that cannot be measured in metrics, nor fully captured in reports. It is felt — like music is felt — in the deep connection between individuals moving toward something larger than themselves. True leadership is invisible, like a conductor whose presence vanishes into the music.

Today, within the storied walls of Harvard Kennedy School, a workshop titled “Leadership and Conducting”brought this metaphor vividly to life. Organized by the McCloy German Caucus and held in Taubman Hall, the session offered more than technique — it offered a philosophy: that leadership, at its finest, is an act of conducting — not commanding.

The afternoon opened with welcoming remarks from Professor Mathias Risse, Director of the McCloy Program, who reflected on the spirit of the day — a spirit of exploration, creativity, and leadership beyond traditional boundaries. In his opening remarks, with visible emotion, on how the beauty of music — particularly its embodiment of unity — moved him to tears, noting how painfully rare and necessary such unity feels in today’s fractured world. His words set the tone for what would become an unforgettable journey into the heart of leadership itself.

It is an idea that echoes the teachings of Ron Heifetz, whose work on adaptive leadership reminds us that to truly lead is to engage both the audience and the unseen music beneath our words — the emotional current that either mobilizes or estranges people. Leadership, like music, is an art of resonance.

The workshop, masterfully led by a seasoned conductor, wove these ideas together with practical wisdom, leaving an imprint on all who attended.

​​A conductor does not seize control of every note. Nor does a true leader. Instead, the role is to create conditions where many individuals, each skilled in their own right, can find their place in a greater harmony.
Harmony is not about sameness; it is about alignment. The conductor showed that leadership begins by creating an atmosphere where all players are tuned not only to their own excellence, but to the collective purpose. Great leaders recognize that brilliance emerges not from louder individuals, but from those who listen, adjust, and build together.
It requires humility — understanding that without the orchestra, the conductor has no sound. Leadership is not a solo performance. It is the invisible weaving of diverse talents into a living, breathing whole.

Communication in leadership is not merely about words — it is about tone, speed, timing, and relevance.
The conductor emphasized that today, attention is the most precious currency. In a world flooded with noise, simply being louder will not suffice. You might keep people awake, but you won’t necessarily capture their hearts.
Instead, he taught, the slower you go — when appropriate — the more profound and lasting your message becomes. Speed must be purposeful; tone must be appropriate to the moment; timing must be impeccable. Leadership is an act of reading the room — or the orchestra — and adapting your message to match what the moment calls for.
A true leader must learn to improvise — to sense when the audience’s attention drifts, to recalibrate, and once attention is secured, to conduct the most important message forward with clarity and grace.
Discipline underpins it all. Without disciplined listening, disciplined timing, and disciplined humility, the music — and leadership — dissolves into noise.

An orchestra trusts its conductor not because the conductor can outplay them, but because the conductor holds the vision — a vision greater than any single part.

Likewise, leadership demands trust — earned through humility, consistency, and service to a purpose higher than oneself. Micromanagement suffocates trust; listening breathes it back into life.
When trust is nurtured, discipline becomes shared, not imposed. Alignment becomes natural, not coerced. As in music, organizations flourish when they are united by trust, not fear.

In music, you must choose the right key to evoke the intended emotions — joy, sorrow, hope, urgency. The same is true in leadership.

Managing an organization is, at its heart, managing emotional resonance. The wrong tone at the wrong time can dissonate and divide. The right tone, chosen carefully and authentically, can inspire and align.

Leadership is the art of finding the key that moves people — of striking chords not with manipulation, but with genuine conviction.

It is not merely about conveying information; it is about creating experiences that stir people into action.

Perhaps the highest form of conducting — and of leadership — is when the audience, or the team, becomes so engrossed in the music, so invested in the mission, that the conductor becomes almost invisible.
At this point, leadership transcends personal charisma or control. It becomes a shared endeavor — a living, breathing entity moving forward under its own inspired momentum.

Ron Heifetz’s idea of getting “on the balcony” — observing the broader system, adjusting rhythm and tone without being swallowed by the chaos — mirrors exactly the conductor’s dance: stepping in when needed, stepping back when possible, always serving the greater sound.

As the workshop at Harvard drew to its end, after four hours of wisdom, movement, and laughter, the conductor lowered his baton and left us with a single, unforgettable charge:

Leadership does not begin when you receive a title or a team.
It begins the moment you decide to live deliberately — to listen deeply, to move with intention, to orchestrate your energy, your passions, your choices toward something larger than yourself.

We all have an orchestra within us: our relationships, our dreams, our fears, our hopes.
Conducting your life means choosing your key wisely. It means setting your own rhythm.
It means slowing down when it matters most, improvising when needed, leading with humility, and never forgetting that true power lies not in how loudly you speak, but in how deeply you connect.

Leadership, after all, is not about spotlighting yourself.
It is about summoning the music that would not have existed without you — and then letting it soar.

And so, the final call lingers still: Go and conduct your life.

Ron Heifetz began his lecture by situating his leadership framework within a deeply personal context. He shared that he originally trained as a medical doctor, aspiring to become a neurosurgeon like his father—himself a legendary figure in the field. But his career path took a dramatic turn during a gap year before his residency, which led to two transformative experiences.

1. Prison Doctor at Rikers Island
Heifetz’s first moonlighting job was at a New York City prison. There, from 4 PM to 8 AM, he examined newly arrived inmates. He noticed that:
• Most were Black or Latinx men, not from privileged backgrounds.
• Almost all had experienced injustice or trauma.
• Their suffering couldn’t be “fixed” with medical intervention.
These were not “technical problems” (the kind a surgeon could fix) but deep social and adaptive problems (that of heart and mind), rooted in systemic issues that required societal change, not expert intervention.

2. Physician for Corporate Executives at Rockefeller Center
The second job, in stark contrast, was in a clinic serving high-powered business leaders.
• He saw signs of burnout, anxiety, and leadership stress.
• These men had authority but lacked inner resilience.
• He listened deeply to their experiences, spending more time than required.
Even those in positions of power struggled—especially with the emotional burdens of leadership.
Together, these jobs made him realize that many of society’s hardest problems are not technical—they are adaptive. They require people to change their behaviors, beliefs, and relationships, which is much harder than applying a solution from expertise.

Heifetz outlined three core principles that underlie his framework for leadership:
1. Leadership is a Practice, Not a Personality Trait or Position
• Leadership is not tied to authority or charisma.
• It’s a form of work, a craft that addresses a specific category of problems.
• Just as carpenters or doctors work on specific domains, leadership focuses on mobilizing people to face adaptive challenges.
• During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, leadership was practiced by many people—some in formal roles, others not—who rose to the occasion creatively.

2. The Core Challenge Is Diagnostic: Technical vs. Adaptive Problems
• Technical problems can be solved by expertise. They have known solutions.
• Adaptive problems require learning, emotional shifts, and changes in values or behavior.
• Most problems are a mix of both, and the failure to diagnose correctly is the most common leadership failure.
Two main reasons people misdiagnose:
a. Overconfidence: People in authority often default to what they know.
b. Political Risk: Naming an adaptive challenge threatens the status quo and can create resistance.
​
3. Authority Is a Tool, Not the Essence of Leadership
• Authority is a contractual relationship—people give power to others in exchange for services.
• But having authority doesn’t mean you’re leading.
• Many people in power avoid adaptive work because it’s politically dangerous.
• Leadership can be exercised from any position, even without formal power.

Heifetz turned to evolutionary biology to inspire adaptive work:
• Even radical transformations in nature are conservative—they retain DNA while innovating.
• Similarly, leadership should not advocate only for change but also for preserving what’s essential in a culture or organization.
Failure to honor what should be conserved provokes backlash—often stronger than the forward momentum of change itself.
• Social justice movements, while passionate and righteous, can provoke strong counter-reactions if they ignore or dishonor what others want to preserve. He sees this as one of the major strategic mistakes in leadership today.

As a student of MLD-201: Exercising Leadership – The Politics of Change and MLD-202: Leadership from the Inside Out, I’ve spent the year immersed in Ron Heifetz’s foundational framework of adaptive leadership.

In MLD-201, we learn to view leadership as a practice—not a position or personality trait, but a disciplined craft of mobilizing people to face tough challenges. The course introduces the distinction between technical and adaptiveproblems and equips students to diagnose complex systems, engage stakeholders, and lead amidst resistance.

MLD-202, in turn, turns the lens inward. It asks: Who are you, really, when you lead? What values, loyalties, and narratives shape your actions? And what internal transformations must you undergo in order to lead others through external change? It is, in every sense, a course on the inner work of leadership—on self, identity, and freedom.

It was in that spirit that I asked a question that had been rising within me for some time:
“How do we renegotiate our lines of code?”

I wasn’t referring to computer programming, of course. I was speaking about the deep internal scripts—the cultural, familial, and personal programming that often governs us unconsciously. The “code” we inherit that shapes how we relate to power, belonging, and responsibility. My question was about the courage it takes to examine that programming—and rewrite it.
Heifetz answered with the clarity of someone who distilled four decades of work into four profound minutes:
• First, he said, start with reverence. Honor your roots. Acknowledge the wisdom and strength embedded in the traditions and values that shaped you.
• But then, he urged, be willing to examine what no longer serves you or those you seek to lead.
• And above all, understand that this work--the work of internal adaptation—is lifelong. It is not linear. It is often painful. But it is essential for personal integrity and real leadership.

This moment captured the very heart of MLD-202: that before we can guide others through transformation, we must be willing to undertake it ourselves. Leadership doesn’t begin with grand strategies or flawless speeches. It begins with the quiet, often difficult work of looking within—and choosing who we want to become.

He closed with practical, heartfelt guidance:
• Don’t wait for the “perfect job”--every job can be an experiment in learning, if you’re fully present.
• Leadership is not measured by title, visibility, or outcome. Many of your most important contributions won’t be seen or celebrated.
• Don’t be paralyzed by grandiosity—Harvard may make you feel like you must change the world. But changing a room, a relationship, or a mindset can be just as meaningful.
• Stay grounded in meaning, not measurement.

• Leadership is not about having answers—it’s about asking better questions and engaging people in the work of transformation.
• Distinguishing technical and adaptive problems is essential—and failing to do so leads to ineffective or even harmful leadership.
• Leadership starts with self-awareness: renegotiating your own “code” is a prerequisite for leading others through change.
• Humility, presence, and the ability to honor the past while moving forward are what make leadership humane—and possible.

On the evening of April 4, 2025, a room at Harvard filled with the pulse of purpose. The CJ4All Launch Party--Climate Justice for All: Stories, Struggles & Solidarity—was not a typical campus event. It was a moral reckoning. A political awakening. And most of all, a call to organize.
​
Born from MLD377: Organizing: People, Power, Change, taught by Professor Marshall Ganz, CJ4All is a student-led campaign demanding that Harvard recognize what frontline communities have long known: climate change is not only an environmental crisis—it is a justice crisis.

The evening unfolded with testimony, analysis, and imagination—stories from Saudi Arabia, Nepal, the Philippines, Nigeria, and India that illuminated the global asymmetries at the core of our planetary emergency.

Mark Dennis Joven, a prominent figure in international climate finance from the Philippines, addressed the critical shortfall in the Loss and Damage Fund. He highlighted that while approximately $700 million has been pledged to the fund, this amount represents less than 0.2% of the estimated $400 billion in losses that developing countries face annually due to climate change . This stark disparity underscores the vast gap between current financial commitments and the actual needs of vulnerable nations. Joven emphasized the necessity for developed countries to substantially increase their contributions and to explore innovative financing mechanisms to bridge this chasm.

Ritwija Darbari, a policy strategist from India, delved into the nation’s endeavor to balance rapid economic growth with social equity and environmental sustainability. She noted that as India advances its development agenda, it faces the dual challenge of uplifting a vast population while mitigating environmental degradation. Darbari referenced India’s commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by 2070 and the associated strategies, including a significant push towards renewable energy . She stressed that sustainable development in India necessitates policies that are inclusive, ensuring that economic benefits are equitably distributed and that environmental considerations are integral to the growth narrative.

​New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on Climate Finance
​The NCQG emerged as a cornerstone of COP 29, reflecting the financial disparities that challenge equitable climate action.
Developing Nations' Advocacy

• Developing nations, led by the G77/China and supported by the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), demanded $1.3 trillion annually by 2030 to address:
  • Mitigation: Scaling renewable energy and reducing emissions.
  • Adaptation: Building resilience to climate impacts.
  • Loss and Damage: Covering irreversible climate consequences.
• Public finance was emphasized as the primary funding mechanism, with allocation floors of $220 billion for LDCs and $39 billion for SIDS to ensure equitable distribution.

Developed Nations' Response

• Developed nations agreed to triple climate finance to at least $300 billion annually by 2035 to support developing countries' climate adaptation and mitigation efforts. 
• The agreement includes a broader goal to mobilize $1.3 trillion annually from diverse sources, including private investment, by 2035, but lacks binding commitments.
• Proposals focused on broadening the contributor base to include emerging economies, which developing nations resisted as a dilution of historical accountability under the Paris Agreement.
• Developed nations highlighted private sector mobilization as a vital supplement to public finance, a suggestion met with skepticism over its reliability and equity.

Key Challenges

• Transparency and Accountability: Disagreements persisted on mechanisms to track and verify financial flows.
• Quantum vs. Quality: Developed nations emphasized effective utilization over absolute amounts, while developing nations pushed for a substantial quantum.

Outcomes
​Despite extensive discussions, fundamental disagreements on quantum, scope, and structure of the NCQG were unresolved. While frameworks were advanced, the lack of consensus left critical gaps that will carry over to COP 30.

Article 6: Carbon Markets and Cooperative Approaches
​Article 6 discussions aimed to operationalize mechanisms for global carbon markets under the Paris Agreement, addressing both market-based and cooperative approaches.

• Negotiators finalized all remaining sections of Article 6, completing the framework for international carbon markets under the Paris Agreement after nearly a decade.

Article 6.2: Cooperative Approaches

• A dual-layer registry system was proposed:
  • An international registry for transparent tracking of carbon units.
  • An optional UNFCCC-managed layer offering additional functions such as transfers.
• Authorization flexibility was a point of contention, with developing nations advocating for less restrictive guidelines to enable broader participation.

Article 6.4: Carbon Markets

• Emphasis was placed on methodologies to ensure market integrity, including:
  • Robust baseline setting.
  • Avoiding double counting.
  • Transparency in reporting and verification.
• Voluntary Carbon Markets: Developing nations expressed concerns about the credibility and inclusivity of these markets, citing potential inequities.

Challenges

• Persistent divides over certification mechanisms and the role of voluntary markets highlighted the need for inclusive frameworks that avoid undermining trust in carbon trading.

Outcomes

• Progress was made in advancing transparency frameworks, yet unresolved issues around certification and equity were deferred to future negotiations.

Adaptation, Loss and Damage, and Just Transitions
​While finance and mitigation dominated the agenda, other critical areas demanded attention:

• Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA): Discussions focused on adaptation finance and measurable progress, but resistance to binding commitments limited actionable outcomes.
• Loss and Damage Fund (LDF): Operationalization of the LDF highlighted the need for simplified access and predictable funding, particularly for vulnerable nations like SIDS and LDCs.
• Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP): Efforts to integrate equity into energy transitions faltered, reflecting the ongoing struggle to balance ambition with social justice.

Global Stocktake Decision Deferred:

• No agreement was reached on how to advance the outcomes of the COP28 “global stocktake”. This decision was postponed to COP 30 in Brazil.

​

Reflections on Global Climate Governance
​COP 29 highlighted the fragility of the global climate negotiation process. The election of Donald Trump and his renewed pledge to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, coupled with Argentina’s abrupt exit from COP 29 negotiations, highlighted the challenges of sustaining collective action in an increasingly polarized world.
Argentina's Exit: A Signal of Disregard

• President Milei's withdrawal of Argentina’s delegation from COP 29, along with the dissolution of its Ministry of Environment, marked a sharp departure from the country's progressive climate stance.
• This retreat not only diminished Argentina’s influence but also weakened advocacy for critical issues such as climate finance for developing nations.

Trump's Return: A Blow to Multilateralism

• A potential U.S. withdrawal would strip the world's second-largest emitter of decision-making power in Paris Agreement negotiations, emboldening climate-skeptical nations and jeopardizing global cooperation.

The Future of COPs
The simultaneous challenges posed by the U.S. and Argentina raise a pressing question: 
Will COP 30 mark the end of the COP process as we know it?
The effectiveness of annual COPs is increasingly under scrutiny. The procedural inefficiencies and entrenched divides evident at COP 29 have fueled debates about whether this framework can deliver transformative action. While abandoning the COP process could risk decades of progress, reforms are imperative to ensure these summits remain relevant.

A Way Forward
To safeguard the future of global climate governance, the following steps are critical:

1. Historical Responsibility and Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capacities (CBDR-RC): The principle of CBDR-RC, central to the Paris Agreement, underscores the moral and legal obligation of developed nations to lead on climate action. Historical emitters like the United States must acknowledge their outsized contribution to global emissions and provide financial and technical support to developing nations. However, a growing trust deficit threatens this framework. The unfulfilled $100 billion annual climate finance pledge, agreed upon in 2009, has left vulnerable nations questioning the sincerity of new commitments like the proposed $300 billion NCQG target. Especially as the U.S. threatens to leave the Paris Agreement, again. If the $100 billion was never honored, why should developing nations believe this time will be any different?
2. Strengthen Accountability: Restoring trust requires robust mechanisms to hold nations accountable for their commitments. Transparent tracking of emissions reductions, financial contributions, and progress on adaptation is essential. Developed nations must deliver on past promises while ensuring that new pledges are credible, verifiable, and actionable.
3. Enhance Equity: Inclusive financing mechanisms and equitable access to carbon markets are necessary to bridge the North-South divide. Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), which are disproportionately impacted by climate change, must have their voices amplified in decision-making processes. Rebuilding trust also means prioritizing predictable and grant-based public finance over uncertain private investments.
4. Reform COP Structures: The COP process itself must evolve to address inefficiencies and deliver tangible outcomes. Procedural delays and fragmented negotiations erode trust and diminish the urgency of climate action. Streamlining discussions to focus on implementation, rather than endless debates, can enhance the credibility of these summits.
5. Adapt to Geopolitical Realities: The withdrawal of Argentina from COP29 and the looming threat of another U.S. exit under Donald Trump’s renewed leadership have intensified doubts about multilateral cooperation. To counter these setbacks, coalitions of like-minded nations must step up to sustain momentum, demonstrating that global climate action is resilient to political disruptions.

Rebuilding Trust in Climate Governance
The trust deficit that permeates climate negotiations is a direct consequence of unkept promises and perceived inequities in burden-sharing. Developing nations, already bearing the brunt of climate impacts, cannot afford to rely on commitments that lack follow-through. For global climate governance to succeed, trust must be restored through actions, not words.
As COP30 approaches, the stakes could not be higher. Delivering on past pledges, aligning new commitments with the principles of CBDR-RC, and addressing the trust deficit head-on will determine whether the world can unite to confront this existential crisis. Without trust, the foundation of multilateral cooperation will crumble, leaving the future of climate governance—and the planet—in jeopardy.
​The choice is clear: rebuild trust through equitable, collective action or risk collective failure.

This post is based on the API 165 Paper Debrief presentation, where my colleague Hannah Wang and I explored the pivotal question of whether carbon offsets genuinely contribute to emissions reductions. Carbon offsets are often viewed as a crucial solution to help entities meet greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets by compensating for emissions through investments in renewable projects. However, an in-depth analysis by Raphael Calel, Jonathan Colmer, Antoine Dechezleprêtre, and Matthieu Glachant in their study, Do Carbon Offsets Offset Carbon?, raises questions about the true environmental benefits of these offsets, particularly in the context of wind power projects funded under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in India.
Research Question and Core Concern
​The primary question is whether carbon offsets, particularly those generated through CDM wind power projects, truly yield net emissions reductions. The study delves into whether these offsets promote environmental gains or merely support “Blatantly Inframarginal Projects” (BLIMPs) — projects that would have proceeded even without CDM subsidies.
Economic and Policy Context
Carbon markets like the CDM, established under the Kyoto Protocol, have enabled developed countries to achieve part of their emissions reduction targets by funding projects in developing nations. India, a significant beneficiary of CDM support, showcases the potential and pitfalls of such offsets, especially in the wind energy sector. By 2030, CDM is projected to generate approximately 10.65 billion carbon offsets, an amount nearly equivalent to the total emissions of the U.S. and Europe combined in 2019. Yet, the critical challenge remains ensuring that these offsets genuinely result in additional, permanent emissions reductions to support global climate goals effectively.
Methodology and Key Findings
The authors use a counterfactual analysis to distinguish between “marginal” projects — those genuinely dependent on CDM subsidies — and inframarginal ones that would have proceeded regardless. Key elements of the analysis include:

• Benchmarking Turbines: The Enercon E-53 turbine is used as a benchmark for capacity factor calculations, which enables standardized comparisons across projects.
• Connection Costs: A minimum spanning tree algorithm estimates distances from wind farms to electrical substations, which affects the cost of integrating the wind farm into the grid.

Findings from this counterfactual analysis reveal that at least 52% of CDM wind projects in India are classified as BLIMPs, indicating that these projects received subsidies without truly needing them. Furthermore, the CDM’s allocation of carbon offsets underperformed compared to a hypothetical lottery, which would have allocated fewer offsets to inframarginal projects. Consequently, this misallocation is likely to have increased global emissions by 28 million tonnes of CO₂ — roughly equivalent to the annual emissions from seven coal-powered plants.
Policy Implications and Recommendations
These findings highlight the need for policymakers to reassess and refine carbon offset programs to ensure that subsidies exclusively support projects that would not proceed otherwise. Upcoming updates in COP 29 to offset mechanisms, such as the operationalization of Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement, present a valuable opportunity to integrate stricter additionality checks, improve transparency, and incorporate more sophisticated methods for offset allocation. Future innovations could include satellite-based monitoring and blockchain technology for transaction verification, improving accuracy and accountability.
Conclusion: Toward Genuine Climate Mitigation
This analysis highlights an essential insight for the future of carbon markets: true climate action demands mechanisms that precisely allocate resources where they are most needed. Ensuring carbon offsets lead to real reductions is vital in avoiding a counterproductive outcome where well-intended climate policies inadvertently allow emissions to rise.
​
References

1. Calel, R., Colmer, J., Dechezleprêtre, A., & Glachant, M. Do Carbon Offsets Offset Carbon?
2. API 165 Paper Debrief Presentation by Hannah Wang & Noura Mansouri.
3. Aldy, J. E., & Halem, Z. M. The Evolving Role of Greenhouse Gas Emission Offsets in Combating Climate Change.
4. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) CDM Database.
5. Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) for wind project data.
6. OpenAI ChatGPT, assistance in generating post structure and content synthesis.

On October 22, 2024, the JFK Jr. Forum at Harvard Kennedy School held an extraordinary discussion between former Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou and Professor Ron Heifetz. The setting was symbolic, just steps from our MLD 201 B classroom taught by Professor Tim O'Brien, where we immerse ourselves in Heifetz’s leadership principles. This event was an opportunity to witness how those theories translate into real-world leadership, exemplified by Papandreou’s reflections on navigating the Greek financial crisis, his diplomatic efforts with Turkey, and his leadership within the EU.
Papandreou, a student of Heifetz, brought the adaptive leadership framework to life through his ability to create 'holding environments'—safe spaces for addressing complex, emotionally charged issues, facilitating transformative dialogue, and fostering progress. His reflections on fostering human connection with adversaries, even removing assistants from the room to establish direct communication, offered profound insights into the relational aspect of leadership. He emphasized that leadership is often about confronting deep historical wounds not to perpetuate conflict but to learn and move forward.
As he spoke, I was reminded of another Heifetz student, Jamil Mahuad, who negotiated peace between Ecuador and Peru using the same adaptive principles. Both leaders demonstrated how adaptive leadership goes beyond theory to drive real-world change, tackling entrenched conflicts and navigating systemic challenges.
During the forum, I revisited Heifetz’s concept of "getting on the balcony," a metaphor for stepping back to gain a broader perspective. Papandreou’s ability to view Greece’s crisis within the larger context of European unity and democracy perfectly illustrated this principle. Leadership, as Papandreou demonstrated, isn’t just about quick fixes but about creating conditions for long-term adaptive work—spaces where people can reflect, learn, and grow.
This resonated deeply with our MLD 201 B lessons, where we discuss the complexities of leadership as more than technical solutions but rather the ability to guide people through discomfort and uncertainty. Papandreou’s story reinforced the idea that true leadership requires balancing stability with disruption, helping people face difficult truths while ensuring progress.
The forum felt like an artful "dance on the balcony"—engaging with real-world issues on the ground while observing the bigger system at play. It was a powerful reminder that leadership is about balancing action and reflection, and that the most meaningful change often comes from spaces where leaders allow themselves to both lead and observe.
This conversation not only brought Heifetz's theories to life but served as a heartfelt reminder that leadership is a deeply human process, grounded in relationships, learning, and the courage to face difficult truths. For those of us aspiring to lead with impact, the lessons from Papandreou and Heifetz will undoubtedly guide us in navigating the complexities of leadership in an ever-evolving world.




​

Today, the Mason Fellows had the honor of a special visit from former Mason Fellow (1989) and the former president of Ecuador, Jamil Mahuad. His name in Arabic, "Jamil," meaning beautiful, and "Mahuad," meaning compensated, perfectly encapsulates his rich and transformative life journey. Mahuad’s story is one of resilience, leadership, and the compensation of hard-won victories amidst adversity. His visit was an invaluable learning experience for all, as he shared insights from his extraordinary career in diplomacy, leadership, and global peace.
Mahuad, a Nobel Peace Prize nominee in 1999, is most renowned for his role in negotiating a historic peace treaty between Ecuador and neighboring Peru. This peace agreement, which ended over a century of territorial conflict, stands as one of the most remarkable examples of innovative diplomacy in modern history. The conflict had long been fueled by competing claims over a border area in the Amazon, and past efforts to resolve it had repeatedly failed. Yet, Mahuad’s leadership and the fresh approach he brought to the negotiation table, supported by some of the brightest minds from Harvard, led to a solution that was as creative as it was effective.
The breakthrough in the Ecuador-Peru peace negotiations came through a novel approach that separated property rights from sovereign rights. Traditionally, territorial disputes hinge on sovereignty, with one nation claiming full control over contested land. However, Mahuad and his team, after countless hours of intense negotiations and consultations with experts from Harvard, reframed the issue. They proposed that Peru would retain sovereignty over the disputed area while Ecuador would gain property rights to a small symbolic portion of the land. This compromise allowed both countries to claim a form of victory: Peru maintained territorial sovereignty, while Ecuador gained a symbolic but important stake.
This solution, rooted in innovative diplomacy, was a game-changer. It broke the deadlock that had lasted for generations and showed how creative thinking, paired with strategic diplomacy, can resolve even the most intractable conflicts. The successful negotiations involved extensive support from Harvard’s experts, whose intellectual contributions helped shape a solution that honored both nations’ histories, emotions, and needs. 
As Mahuad reflected on the negotiations, he emphasized the delicate balance between politics, symbolism, and diplomacy. He remarked, “A human being is fatally forced to choose,” quoting philosopher José Ortega y Gasset. This quote highlights the weight of leadership decisions that Mahuad carried throughout the peace process. His willingness to innovate and take risks—while navigating national pride, historical grievances, and international pressure—demonstrated profound leadership in action.

Takeaways 
I walked away from Jamil Mahuad’s talk with a sense of pride, hope, and deep inspiration. He shared a powerful quote: "Our feet are not as important as our steps," which resonates with the mindset we live by at Harvard Kennedy School: "Ask what you can do." His reflections not only honored his own incredible journey but also prepared us for the path ahead in the Mason Program and beyond.
Reflecting on his time after Harvard, Mahuad spoke of the stark contrast between preparation at Harvard and real-world challenges, saying, “After spending two days with those who make history, I return to those who suffer from it.” His words resonate with the reality that, while we may be ready to “drive a Ferrari” after our transformative time here, the world may hand us “taxis” instead—reminding us to use our assets wisely while being aware of our limitations.
He also imparted a profound lesson on courage, stating that “Courage is the obedience to serene judgment,” beautifully capturing the balance between triumph and regress in leadership. His journey is a testament to navigating those peaks and valleys with grace, reminding us that the true measure of leadership lies in our ability to endure, to adapt, and to keep moving forward, one profound step at a time.

This post is based on an assignment we had to submit for API 165, Energy and Environmental Economics and Policy taught by Joe Aldy, on evaluating the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) and Target-Consistent Pricing (TCP). 
​
As the world continues to find ways for addressing the challenges of climate change, the debate around carbon pricing intensifies. Two key approaches dominate discussions: the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) and Target-Consistent Pricing (TCP). Both frameworks offer valuable insights, but their underlying assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions diverge in important ways. In this post, I explore these two approaches, uncover their strengths and limitations, and suggest how we can move forward to design more effective climate policies.
​
What Is the Social Cost of Carbon?
The Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) is a tool used by economists to put a price on the damages caused by emitting one additional ton of CO2 into the atmosphere. It essentially tells us how much climate change is going to cost society in terms of things like reduced agricultural productivity, increased mortality rates, and the destruction of property due to extreme weather events.
Governments and policymakers use SCC to evaluate the costs and benefits of climate policies. Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), such as DICE, FUND, and PAGE, are the main tools for calculating SCC. These models try to balance the costs of reducing emissions with the economic damage caused by climate change (Pizer et al., 2014). While widely used, these models are often criticized for oversimplifying the complexities of climate change, particularly when it comes to dealing with uncertainty and catastrophic risks (Stern et al., 2022).

The Problem with Relying Solely on SCC
Despite its widespread use, the SCC approach has its shortcomings. One of the main criticisms is that it relies on "discount rates," which help economists figure out how much future climate damage is worth today. A high discount rate lowers the present value of future damages, which can justify weaker climate policies. On the other hand, a low discount rate places a higher value on future generations' well-being, supporting stronger action (Aldy et al., 2021). The debate around discount rates reflects deeper ethical questions about how we value the future and what kind of world we want to leave behind.
Another issue with SCC is the challenge of accounting for deep uncertainty. Climate change involves not only risks we can predict but also extreme events we can't foresee or quantify, such as catastrophic sea-level rise or the collapse of ecosystems. These "fat-tail" risks aren't adequately captured by traditional IAMs, which focus on expected utility and average outcomes (Stern et al., 2022). This means that SCC, in many cases, may underestimate the true risks of climate change.

A New Approach: Target-Consistent Pricing (TCP)
TCP, on the other hand, offers a more goal-oriented solution. Instead of trying to calculate the economic cost of each ton of CO2, TCP sets carbon prices based on what is needed to achieve a specific climate goal, such as net-zero emissions by 2050. Kaufman et al. (2020) propose the Near-Term to Net Zero (NT2NZ) approach, a specific type of TCP, which focuses on setting carbon prices that reflect the cost of staying within the near-term trajectory required to meet long-term climate targets. This approach is aligned with international agreements like the Paris Agreement, which seeks to limit global temperature increases to 1.5–2°C.
TCP has the advantage of providing policymakers with clearer, actionable guidance. Instead of dealing with the complexities of estimating long-term climate damages (which are subject to great uncertainty), TCP focuses on the immediate policy actions needed to meet specific climate goals.

SCC vs. TCP: Where Do They Diverge?
While both SCC and TCP aim to guide climate action, their methods and philosophies diverge significantly.

• SCC focuses on long-term optimization, trying to find the "right" carbon price by balancing the costs and benefits of climate policies. It asks, “How much damage will this extra ton of CO2 cause?”
• TCP, on the other hand, asks, “What carbon price will help us meet our climate targets?” It’s less about theoretical precision and more about practical action.

A major point of divergence is in how they handle risk and uncertainty. SCC calculations tend to underestimate the potential for catastrophic events by focusing on average outcomes, while TCP builds in a precautionary approach, recognizing the need to avoid critical climate thresholds at all costs (Kaufman et al., 2020).

Bridging the Gap: A New Way Forward
Both SCC and TCP have their strengths and weaknesses. SCC gives us a way to measure the economic impacts of climate change, but it’s riddled with uncertainties and ethical dilemmas. TCP is more pragmatic, offering a clear path to meeting climate goals, but it lacks the rigorous theoretical foundation of SCC.
To truly advance climate policy, we need to bridge the gap between these two approaches. One way forward is to integrate the best aspects of both: using SCC to inform the broader economic context while adopting the NT2NZ approach to set actionable, near-term targets. This hybrid framework could provide a more comprehensive roadmap for policymakers, balancing economic efficiency with the urgent need to tackle climate change head-on.
Conclusion
As we refine the ways we address climate change, it’s clear that no single approach can solve the problem. The Social Cost of Carbon offers valuable insights into the long-term economic damages of climate change, while Target-Consistent Pricing gives us a practical path forward. By combining these approaches, we can design more effective policies that not only optimize economic outcomes but also ensure we meet critical climate goals.
This is the challenge of our time: balancing the costs of today with the risks of tomorrow. And as we continue to refine these models, we must remember that the future depends on the decisions we make now.

References

• Aldy, J. E., Atkinson, G., & Kotchen, M. J. (2021). Environmental Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Comparative Analysis Between the United States and the United Kingdom. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 13(1), 267-288. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-040821-045913​
• Kaufman, N., Barron, A. R., Krawczyk, W., Marsters, P., & McJeon, H. (2020). A Near-Term to Net Zero Alternative to the Social Cost of Carbon for Setting Carbon Prices. Nature Climate Change, 10, 1010-1014. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0880-3
• OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT (October 2024 version) for research and drafting assistance.
• Pizer, W. A., Adler, M., Aldy, J. E., Anthoff, D., Cropper, M., Gillingham, K., & Tavoni, M. (2014). The Social Cost of Carbon: Advances in Long-term Predictions. Science, 346(6214), 1189-1190. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255997
• Stern, N., Stiglitz, J. E., & Taylor, C. (2022). The Economics of Immense Risk, Urgent Action and Radical Change: Towards New Approaches to the Economics of Climate Change. Journal of Economic Methodology, 29(3), 181-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2022.2040740