Hello all, I agree with Susi that these questions are deeply personal and that I struggle daily with the cognitive dissonance between my lived life and knowledge of the impacts of my personal actions. To function on a day-to-day basis, I just shove that to the background, knowing that I can't become so overwhelmed by the weight of that knowledge that it impedes my ability to act.
In response to Debra's point, I would argue that the discussion about academic flying is quite institutional in its orientation, not individualized, in the sense of universities, state university systems, national associations, and the broader institution of "education". Having children is a very personal choice, yet we promote family planning, free education especially for girls, welfare and social services for the elderly - all of which enable greater choice for individuals in ways that often result in reduced fertility rates. The more universities take actions to reduce emissions on other fronts, the greater air travel emissions will be as a proportion of total emissions. Yet our accounting, whether of cities or schools, usually doesn't even include air travel in carbon footprints. So just as schools are discussing fossil free, carbon neutrality, net zero buildings, etc., why not have air travel be part of that conversation? There is as yet no replacement for air travel, the way there is for coal power or meat, etc. Only behavior change can reduce emissions which makes "institutional change" on this front that much more difficult. I've noticed that the more elite the school, the more global its profile, its "engaged" teaching, and the lower ranked, the more local and regional. Cornell has a fossil free goal - and it does not include travel, which is high given that we are "centrally isolated". Carbon neutrality for buildings signals progressive thinking, elite standing, but air travel signals elite status. Thus we come back to Susi's point about what it mean to create knowledge, to have impact, to be respected? To change air travel in academia is not just a tech swap out, but seems to require whole new ways of collaborating, engaging, and teaching. I see very little appetite for such levels of institutional change. Linda PS I am new to #flyless, but found this article helpful. https://ethical.net/climate-crisis/the-flyless-and-nofly-movements-would-you-stop-flying-if-you-knew-its-true-cost/ ------------------- Linda Shi Assistant Professor Department of City and Regional Planning Cornell University 213 Sibley Hall [email protected] ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Debra Javeline <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 12:53 PM To: ''GEP-Ed List'' Subject: [gep-ed] individualization Dear Michael and all, I was excited to have Michael chime in, because I thought he might offer a different perspective based on the 2001 GEP article on individualization. Curbing our flying behavior is undoubtedly more consequential than recycling (or even planting a tree, buying a bike, etc.), but is it the best use of our collective energy to focus on individual responsibility? If the issues are mainly structural and institutional, are these “to fly or not to fly” debates a distraction from the bigger debates about how we could collectively influence outcomes, if at all? (I do understand that discussions about flying involve changing our professional institutions, but in the grand scheme of atmospheric collapse and our limited time and energy, don’t political institutions matter more?) I don’t have answers or judgment. I do less frequent conference and research travel than most, I have been a vegetarian for 35 years, and I don’t even own a smart phone (due to concern about e-waste – my 15-year-old flip phone still works, and I don’t even use that phone too much, preferring to look up and around). But… I have three kids with Western consumption patterns, so the planet isn’t necessarily better off for having me in it. Like many of us, I struggle with “walking the walk,” but what kind of walk? Michael’s ideas about political action (and others who write in the same spirit) seem worthy of attention. All the best, Debra ***** Debra Javeline Associate Professor | Department of Political Science | University of Notre Dame | 2060 Jenkins Nanovic Halls | Notre Dame, IN 46556 | tel: 574-631-2793<tel:(574)%20631-2793> Fellow, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies<http://kroc.nd.edu/>, Kellogg Institute for International Studies<http://nd.edu/~kellogg/>, Nanovic Institute for European Studies<http://nanovic.nd.edu/> Core faculty, Russian and East European Studies Program<http://germanandrussian.nd.edu/russian/faculty/program-faculty/RussianandEastEuropeanStudies.shtml> Affiliated faculty, Notre Dame Environmental Change Initiative<http://environmentalchange.nd.edu/> -- 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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gep-ed/01e501d5373f%24efa4a5f0%24ceedf1d0%24%40nd.edu<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gep-ed/01e501d5373f%24efa4a5f0%24ceedf1d0%24%40nd.edu?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gep-ed/DM6PR04MB649675FDC3A794AFDDC1AFEFC9F30%40DM6PR04MB6496.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.
