> So then, why take the train to ESA? 1. Reduce the carbon footprint of > science.
Not realistically possible. You're a student now, but when you enter the working world - either in private industry or academia - there is a very high probability your position will require you to travel by air to maximize the productivity of your time. And both the number of scientists and scientific conferences has been increasing over time. So the net carbon footprint of scientists has been increasing and can be expected to for the forseeable future. > While many of us have made changes to our liftestyles to reduce > our carbon footprints In the past we've had discussions about the vehicles todays ecologists drive...mainly heavy, hence gas guzzling, 3400-4500 pound all wheel drive models. But that wasn't the case 30-40 year ago. Back then an ecologist was content to drive lighter, much less powerful two wheel drive vehicles, like 2500 pound compact pickup trucks and 2,800 pound VW Buses. And if they needed four wheel drive they were willing to drive a 2,690 pound Toyota Corolla 4WD wagon: http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/1416/1161/3538080003_large.jpg So there's been an increase in the carbon footprint with regard to vehicle choice as well. > History has shown us that acts of symbolism work (think civil > rights protests in the 1960s) Historically austerity type symbolism has very often failed to foster reductions in per capita resource consumption. On the first Earth Day (1970) for example, the average size of a new home was about 1,500 square feet, but by 2007 that figure had increased by a whopping 67% to 2,500 square feet: http://www.avidhomestudios.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/size_graph1.jpg Thus by multiple measures; i.e. frequency of air travel, vehicle weight and horsepower choices, home size choice and so forth, the carbon footprint of the 30+ year old ecologists that are settled into their careers has been steadily increasing since Earth Day 1970. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
