Paul-
I think you have this upside down in a few ways. Taking the train
actually increases productivity. For example, I often take the train
from Portland to Seattle - it is a 4 hour train ride, or a 3 hour drive,
but those 3 hours are completely lost to productivity (except random
thinking). On the train I can work on my notebook or pad, plug it into
an AC outlet, and stay connected over free wifi - a very pleasant and
productive time.
I anticipate taking longer trips by train for similar reasons - we
need solid blocks of writing and working time. Having breaks away from
the constant nagging of administrative/mentoring/teaching duties is
important for productive work.
Take the train!
Mitch
On 5/2/2013 6:36 PM, Paul Cherubini wrote:
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.
