I suppose that the question ought to be posed differently: individual choice vs. collective action or mobilization? Consumer choice or mass action? Clearly, as a single person on a scheduled flight, one makes little difference. But as Arlo Guthrie once pointed out, "If a whole bunch of people sing it [Alice's Restaurant]. it'll be a social movement!" (or something to that effect). If academics were to begin a movement to change the social practices expected of us, the cumulative impact could be considerable and that would stand as a shared commitment.
Now, I am not without sin, since, for ISA, I plan to fly to Houston, drive to New Orleans for one day and back, and fly home from Houston. (Not really what I want to do, but I made a commitment to be on one panel this year.) Yes, I am being hypocritical on this and would dearly love to find a way to interact with colleagues and not have to fly hither and thither. Ronnie On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 10:19 AM, John M. Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: > My question is both broader and narrower than the one that Paul begins > with. > > If a conference comes relatively close to me -- within a manageable day's > drive (say 5 hours... for me that means San Francisco), it often feels like > a less substantial climate impact to drive there and attend (sorry, no > ready bus or train options, though carpooling can be feasible) than it does > to fly to a more distant transcontinental or international destination for > the same the same or similar event. > > ...and yet: when I fly to the more distant destination, I take a seat on > already scheduled airlines and -- wherever possible -- local public > transit. In that sense, the far longer trip generates far fewer > 'new' carbon emissions, etc., than the shorter trip does. > > Is one better than the other? I pose the question not just as one of > individual responsibility. But surely one approach, assuming Paul's is not > an argument for eliminating all face-to-face meetings, is for concentrating > these at the regional level. Yet it seems plausible that, at least in the > US and other countries without robust public transit infrastructure, this > might generate more 'new' emissions than a more distant national or > international conference. > > Is this distinction between otherwise scheduled and new emissions sound? > Is it morally and or politically relevant in this case? > > John > > On Sunday, December 7, 2014, Raul Pacheco-Vega <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> In the interest of disclosure, I sit on the Executive Committee of the >> Environmental Studies Section of ISA and I'm the Chair of the Professional >> Development Committee of AESS. And I travel quite a lot for field research >> and other academic workshops, so I am hardly an unbiased commenter. I do >> buy carbon offsets, though (this in no way makes me any less responsible >> for my carbon emissions, but at least I do try to offset and reduce them). >> >> I sit on the side of "there are very significant benefits to meeting >> face-to-face rather than online". I do a lot of online (WebEx, GoToMeeting, >> Skype, FaceTime) meetings, and with the rare exception of (OMG, a non-Jobs >> fan about to gush) FaceTime, I find almost every single model of >> non-face-to-face meeting sorely lacking. >> >> I wrote a defense of large-scale conferences a while ago >> >> http://www.raulpacheco.org/2014/04/in-defense-of-large-academic-conferences-my-post-isa2014-reflections/ >> >> Like DG, I combine my large-scale academic conferences with fieldwork (as >> I did in Japan with IASC 2013, Uruguay with CLAD 2013, Toronto with ISA >> 2014 and Madrid with GIGAPP 2014). I also try to go to way fewer >> conferences than I used to do. But it's always important to keep it in >> mind. >> >> On the personal side of things, there are quite a lot of downsides to >> extensive academic travel. I also wrote about that. >> http://www.raulpacheco.org/2013/11/the-downsides-of-academic-travel/ >> >> Thanks for the reminder! >> >> Best, >> Raul >> >> >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> Dr. Raul Pacheco-Vega >> Assistant Professor, Public Administration Division >> Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economicas, A.C (CIDE, A.C.) >> Campus Región Centro >> >> Circuito Tecnopolo Norte S/N, Col. Hacienda Nueva >> Aguascalientes, Ags. 20313, Mexico >> Tel. (+52-449) 994-5150 x 5196 >> Cel. (+52-449) 280-2484 >> Website <http://www.raulpacheco.org> - Twitter >> <http://www.twitter.com/raulpacheco> - Facebook >> <http://www.facebook.com/drpachecovega> - CIDE webpage >> <http://cide.edu/investigador/profile.php?IdInvestigador=1266> >> >> Read my publications: On Academia.Edu >> <http://cide.academia.edu/RaulPachecoVega> On ResearchGate >> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Raul_Pacheco-vega> On Mendeley >> <http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/raul-pacheco-vega/> >> My citations: Available on Google Scholar >> <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7mn6g3oAAAAJ&hl=en> >> >> Associate Editor, Journal of Environmental Sciences and Studies >> <http://link.springer.com/journal/13412> >> >> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Ronnie Lipschutz <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > -- > John M. Meyer, Professor > Department of Politics > Humboldt State University > Arcata, CA 95521 USA > > 707.826.4497 (voice) > 707.826.4496 (fax) > [email protected] > users.humboldt.edu/john.m.meyer > > > -- 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.
