Call for Participation and Discussants
Climate Ethics And Climate Economics: Fat Tails – Imposing and Redistributing Risks
Workshop at the London School of Economics
Convened by Kai Spiekermann and Jonathan Aldred, supported by the ESRC
14-15 September 2016
Accompanied by public lectures given by Prof Pindyck and Prof Gardiner on the evening of the 13th and 15th of September
The third of six ESRC-funded workshops on Climate Ethics and Climate Economics
We are now looking for participants. Priority will be given to participants willing to act as discussants.
Confirmed Speakers
Professor Stephen Gardiner, University of Washington
Professor Robert S. Pindyck, MIT
Dr Simon Beard, Cambridge
Professor Simon Dietz, LSE
Eike Düvel, Graz
Dr Jonathan Herington, Kansas State University
Professor James Lenman, Sheffield
Kian Mintz-Woo, Graz
Dr Matthew Rendall, Nottingham
Vera Van Gool, Reading
This workshop will focus on large-scale risks caused by climate change. In particular, we are interested in discussing theoretical, empirical and normative questions arising from large-scale risks and so-called “fat tail” risk distributions. The realizations that climate change may well be catastrophic and the probabilities of catastrophic outcomes difficult to quantify has shifted the debate towards more “precautionary” approaches. Debates about the most rational response to large scale risks and uncertainty should be complemented by a normative analysis of risk imposition: under which conditions, if any, is it permissible to impose such risks or redistribute them from one group to another? The workshop seeks to bring together economists, philosophers and practitioners to tackle these pressing questions.
Papers will be pre-circulated, with short presentations and comments from discussants.
Please pre-register here.
Dear Madam – Dear Sir,
It seems that new era is opening a new hope for ethics – integrity and equal respect.
In different ways, each political society has proposed practical ways of implementing the principles of ethics & integrity but they all finally registered more or less failures, depending on how large was the hypocrisy.
Like falling states, faster or slower, so organizations of all types are ending in the collapse from the height of glory to the morass of becoming abject.
STANDARD OF BUSINESS CONDUCT is promoted by all large organizations but some of these large organizations are simply pecksniffian.
Seeing themselves in the heaven of the undeserved glory, petty people unable to climb up by themselves, falls in the most abject state just because they are unable neither to create a new value nor to manage the glory of the state were some other valuable people roused that organization
Drunk with undeserved glory heights, petty managers of these big organizations are the first to use the lack of integrity, lack of ethics and lack of respect behavior.
In this contempt it’s easy to understand that a vertiginous collapse proves that the sustainable development depends mainly on professional qualities and Integrity.
These basic terms are no words in the wind but these simple logical items are thought foolish behavior standards by all nullities people, whether they are promoted as directors.
HP is one of the big names known worldwide for hypocrisy, lack of ethics and lack of integrity.
HP is one of the greatest organizations that succeeded to destroy its own legendary success build with integrity – competence – innovation – tenacity,
HP’s BOD managed this glorious company to disaster
Losing the glorious state f HP means the disappearance of a myth, the disappearance of a good lesson to the success and so, is a loss of the whole society due to the petty management
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
There are two basic alternatives:
– To ignore the unfair behavior and to hope that professional qualification of employees might keep alive the great company
– the refusal to buy the products under that brand, just to express both the disapproval of lack of integrity but to keep safe each one’s organization against possible threats coming from a potential unethical threat
To keep continuing buying equipment from a company well known as unethical is tacitly an endorsement of lack of integrity which will cause an increase in bad behavior and so the exposure to more serious security risks for users of equipment purchased from a producer lacking integrity.
The current technologies have increasingly sophisticated data collection abilities using the so called firmware updates for the equipment you are buying from such unfair manufacturers and so there is no problem to infect the networks where the above mentioned equipment are placed.
Both alternatives seems would have a bad impact on our society, not on the BOD: bankruptcy will cause lost jobs and so on . . . . what to do to prevent such an unhappy end ?
How to stop the collapse of a company lacking integrity?
OPEN DEBATE !?
The active open debate might help a company to kick out the b.o.d. members in charge with the unfair behavior and to save the organization.
The subject of this message is HP and so, in case of succeeding, it’s possible to save a legendary symbol of American success, achieved through dedication, innovation, professionalism and high moral.
Having a great financial power, HP can sustain its legal dispute against smaller partners and to violate basic rules of ethics without risking too much.
On the other hand, this abuse of dominant position might be a good opportunity for all of us to explain to the managing bod members that without the respect for the basic rules of integrity their organization will be rejected by society and the society’s justice it’s much more painful for the unethical organizations.
THE SHORT STORY:
HP requires all partners to support an examination on issues like ethics and integrity
HP issued in falsely SBC and started to run an ‘Ethics Office.
HP falsely declared that they will react against any unethical behavior issued from their employees
IN REALITY, let’s see the real unfair HP:
– HP (a local branch), without prior notice, cancel some contracts awarded to its partners, for favoring one single of them (!!!)
– HP (local representative) being asked what was going on, failed to reply as a fair – honorable organization
– HP regional legal manager, received a requested to investigate the case
– HP regional legal manager replied that he sees no noncompliance (!)
– HP – the Ethics Committee received the request to investigate this incident, accordingly to the SBC
– HP – ethics committee replied that they will investigate and will reply
. . . . time goes on without any reply from The ‘Ethics’ Office . . .
– HP – ethics committee did not replied as had engaged in its own SBC!
– HP – is denounced to The Competition Council due to the unfair behavior of b.o.d. (!)
. . . . . after many years. HP is fined !
– HP – was asked all these years to send their own investigation results as they promised to send, as a honorable organization they pretend to be . . . .
– no reply, means no respect!
—– Original Message —–
From: Flint, Erik
To: Sandru Ion
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 5:14 PM
Subject: RE: POLICE DEPARTMENT: STATUS
Hello Ion,
Thank you for your email. We appreciate you taking the time to raise your concerns, and we have referred the matter to the appropriate people.
They may be in contact with you to seek further information, in which case we ask that you to share all relevant details.
Erik Flint
Ethics Office
Office of the General Counsel
Hewlett-Packard Company
+1 972 605 3471 / Tel
erik.flint@hp.com / Email
5400 Legacy Drive
Plano, TX 75024
USA
http://www.hp.com/http://www.hp.com/
This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by this transmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient.
HP do not pay any respect to all their customers & partners
– HP – received also an open debate request from ISA SRL, one of the partners of HP, but they informed us that they do not want to interfere with the ongoing investigations . . . . ha-ha-ha ! Abject hypocrisy !
– ISA, decided to comply with the request of HP despite the fact that has nothing to do the investigation and the self-evaluation with the SBC compliance
– HP received a new request, again and again from ISA SRL to communicate the results of internal corrective measures so as to avoid repeating the acts of abuse of dominant position
– HP did not replied
– HP filed an appeal although it is very clear the unfair behavior
CONCLUSIONS:
LACK OF INTEGRITY from HP is just aggressive as long as the public highlight of unfair behavior has no corrective power on the HP company management
LACK OF INTEGRITY is assumed and encouraged by BOD of HP! – as long as they are informed but did not asked excuses
The aggressive unethical behavior is an obvious sign that HP it’s a major threat to any business partner and to any customer.
‘Updating’ it’s a process the user has no control and no knowledge what is happening in reality:
– receiving an ‘firmware update’ can infect the network ?
– receiving an ‘firmware update’ may instruct the network to send confidential information ?
Let’s open a debate on these subjects
ISA SRL will open the debate by posting relevant information.
Please inform us if you are interested in this subject.
We are also interested to receive your comments.
Contact info:
E: sandru@isa.ro
Best Regards
Ion Sandru