Oops! There's that old collective action problem again: I contribute so little that my stopping would hardly matter.
I know there are people looking into conferencing with robots. You get to control your little unit, complete with camera, video screen, card printer and alcohol denaturer at sites kitted out for remote conferencing. No extortionate hotel rooms, no high-priced cookies and no air travel torture. Hallway encounters are still possible (although bedroom encounters are not). Of course the life cycle emissions of such a system would be fairly great, but this is a "reusable" arrangement that can be used again and again. I admit it's not like face-to-face encounters, but... Best, Ronnie Ronnie On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Wil Burns <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, Paul, I'll bite on this topic, especially since you've raised it to me > in my role as President of the Association of Environmental Studies & > Sciences in the past. At the risk of being subsequently castigated by you > as one of those people living in "willful ignorance," I'd respond as > follows: > > 1. A recent study pegged the CO2 emissions associated with the annual > presentation of ALL scientific papers at 0.003% of total annual travel > emissions ( > http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0066508). > Dare I say that total suspension of Environmental Studies/GEP conference > travel would be little more than a symbolic gesture? > 2. While you minimize the value of face to face interactions with > scholars, and indicate that electronic means of interaction would yield > commensurate results, I think that's a bit simplistic. Undoubtedly, we all > could sit in our offices and watch each other make conference presentations > on Skype. However, some of the most productive time that I've spent at > conferences has been chatting in the hallways, and yes, bars, with > colleagues, deriving new insights on environmental issues, hatching crazy > schemes that sometimes come to fruition and may prove beneficial in some > small ways. These are often happenstance encounters that I daresay would > not occur in the halcyonic virtual world you sketch out in your posting; > 3. Yes, young scholars often do spend a lot of time on their iphones and > other electronic devices, but for me that’s yet another justification for > in-person conferences. Such events help us to convey our passion for the > field, our humanity, in ways that speaking to each other on a screen will > never convey. Conferences are also a critical venue for networking for > young people that can never totally be substituted for electronically; > 4. Every effort should be made to reduce the carbon footprint of > conferences. AESS has a committee researching such approaches, as does many > other organizations. What these efforts can communicate to our students, > and to the public, is that we're a microcosm of society, i.e. our > activities do impose a carbon footprint, but every effort should be made to > reduce it; > 5. A reasonable compromise in this context might be to have a serious > discussion about reducing the incidence of conferences, perhaps every other > year, for example? In the end, however, I can't help but believe that a > total cessation of conferences would do little for the environment while > robbing our field of its life's blood, which is real world interaction and > collaboration. > > > wil > > > Dr. Wil Burns, President, AESS > Co-Executive Director, Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment > A Scholarly Initiative of the School of International Service, American > University > 2650 Haste Street, Towle Hall #G07 > Berkeley, CA 94720 > 650.281.9126 (Phone) > http://www.dcgeoconsortium.org > > Skype ID: Wil.Burns > Blog: Teaching Climate/Energy Law & Policy, > http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of HARRIS, Paul > Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2014 7:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [gep-ed] Virtues of academic conferences > > At long last, someone in a position to do something has admitted that > scholars/teachers jetting around to conferences is morally questionable > (not least because today's information technologies allow far more > collaboration than was possible at conferences even quite recently): > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/06/us/setting-aside-a-scholarly-get-together-for-the-planets-sake.html?ref=earth&_r=0 > > It will be interesting to see where this goes. Will it overcome the > willful ignorance of so many scholars -- those who think that THEIR work is > so vital as to justify conference travel -- that such voluntary behavior is > contributing, albeit perhaps in individually small ways, to profound human > suffering and death in the future through climate change? Even a tiny > contribution to someone else's death seems to call into question conference > travel (and most other travel, at least by auto or airplane). > > I've broached this topic on this list several times over the years, so I > realize that it's not likely to get any traction, and that there will be > all sorts of excuses for continuing business as usual (“How dare you deny > young scholars the right to collaborate” [these are the same young scholars > who collaborate 24/7 on their iPhones, etc.]; “Collaborating via video > conferencing [etc.] just isn’t the same as talking in person” [but there’s > evidence that collaborating remotely can result in more scholarly > productivity] – that sort of thing). > > ISA, APSA and all of the other big academic associations, including those > devoted to environmental issues, seem to have conferences as their core > business models. They don’t want to change. And we scholars don’t help. We > love our conferences, right? And we, like most people, always want to leave > it to others, probably people in the future, or governments or > corporations, to change things. Of course we don't think about it > consciously (so as to avoid guilt, maybe), but our attitude seems to > something along the lines of "I teach about environmental solutions, so I > don't have to be part of them myself," or, even more powerfully, "My > research shows that institutions matter more than individuals, so I can > justify living as I do." How many decades more will scholars take these and > similar views, and continue to set the wrong example? > > I wonder what our students, particularly those who study climate change, > think each time we jet off to a conference? The word “hypocrite” instantly > comes to mind. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "gep-ed" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "gep-ed" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Ronnie D. Lipschutz Professor & Chair of Politics; Provost of College 8 UC Santa Cruz 1156 High St. Santa Cruz, CA 95064 e-mail: [email protected] phone: 831-459-3275/459-2543 web site: http://politics.ucsc.edu/faculty/singleton.php?&singleton=true&cruz_id=rlipsch *"Nothing in the world...is as old as what was futuristic in the past."* (Ben Lerner, *10:04*, p. 152) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gep-ed" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
