The scientific journal Science Advances recently published an editorial entitled "Virtual meetings: A critical step to address climate change". It highlights the importance of cutting down on unnecessary travel and substituting it with online alternatives. The article has particular appeal for academics:
"As individual scientists, we are accustomed to working toward long-term goals. We invest decades in our training, and many of us conduct research programs that require decades to come to fruition."
Long-term thinking is a key element to climate solutions. After all, a sprint and a marathon require different training, preparation and strategy. But it is not that long-term thinking is restricted to scientists, it is just that the journal targets a scientific audience. The article also reminds us that most of us (scientists or not) do employ long-term thinking perhaps without even realizing it.
"Similarly, in our personal lives, most of us avoid smoking, try to eat well, exercise, and save for retirement, all of which are long-term goals. These decisions are similar in time scale to those needed to address climate change."
People across sectors can apply the same principle to reduce emissions: cut down on unnecessary flying. Hold virtual meetings instead of physical ones whenever you can. Expect less flying from people in your institutions / organizations. Help provide level-playing fields so that people who opt to fly less do not suffer for it. Re-assess the importance of events in your performance. Encourage work from home (though this may help on a much smaller scale). There are no universal solutions or strategies but the thumb rule remains the same: reduce unnecessary travel.
No Fly Climate Sci
In 2017, climate scientist Peter Kalmus launched the NoFlyClimateSci experiment. Climate scientists have a deeper understanding of the magnitude and severity of climate change. Several climate scientists felt that unless they walked the talk, it would be unfair to ask the world to make changes to their lifestyle. They were quickly joined by hundreds of people across sectors. Even more impressively, some senior scientists have pledged to reduce their flying on behalf of early career researchers who may not always be able to do so. [ Read: Why some climate scientists are saying no to flying .] We already know that not everyone can afford to fly, but what about the "fact" that not everyone can afford to not fly? Not flying may reduce opportunities for early career researchers, punishing those who choose to go green.
I expect very few people have a lifestyle where the answer is an easy "Yes!". Everyone has personal obligations and families are often separated by large distances. Even if you live close to your family, you may like to travel.
The key thing to realize is that like every other decision, the decision to not fly is just another cost-benefit analysis. This BBC article lays out some facts that you should consider in this cost-benefit analysis. For me, what stands out is that a very small percentage of people contribute disproportionately to aviation emissions. Simply put, there's a small number of people who fly a lot, and a large number of people who don't but suffer due to all the flying anyway. If you fly a lot (many long-haul flights a year, international vacations, flying business/first) the "sacrifice" is actually very small for you, but the cost you impose on the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society is very large. It's easy to see what choices to make in this kind of a situation.
But what if you do fly but not "a lot"? Your impacts become a bit more difficult to estimate -- but also easier to compensate for. For example, this Guardian article lays out some excellent ways travel enthusiasts can reduce their footprints without making drastic cuts on their love for exploring. Wanderlust does not have to stand in the way of climate consciousness -- or the other way round!
I also emphasize the role of individual action in another blog post. Two things are simultaneously true about individual efforts to combat climate change - (1) they have limited scope and (2) they have an impact. You can be climate conscious without making disruptive changes to your lifestyle, the trick is to find what works well for you. I discourage people from making pledges like "I will stop flying". Instead, go for sustainable goals like
To summarize: the aviation industry offers scope to reduce "unnecessary" emissions. Whenever you can, please avoid air travel. Read more about this, inform yourself, form your own opinions and make some lifestyle changes. Even if you can't reduce your air travel, becoming cognizant of your impact would help. There are other ways to compensate.
Hmm. Nice insight
ReplyDelete