Thanks everyone for interesting contributions to this discussion and the
many kind responses I have gotten privately.
I wanted to offer a resource as well, somewhat countering the
(inaccurate or at least incomplete) interpretation of my intervention as
individualization. In that post I spoke of the personal and professional
and systemic places we need to reflect on.
That said, there is a great need, it strikes me, to continue these
conversations - with students, our colleagues, our administrators and so
on, in many more places - until we raise enough collective awareness and
momentum to get to real change. And we don't have all the time in the
world to do that!
So, here is my resource to support that: For the last 4+ years, I have
been part of something called the Council on the Uncertain Human Future
<https://councilontheuncertainhumanfuture.org/>, an amazing group of
women (but many other councils since have been co-ed, so no restrictions
there!) doing some deep talking and reckoning with where we're at and
what we want to do about it - individually and collectively. There is no
reason such a discussion could not be more narrowly defined around who
we are as a profession and how we nourish and foster our intellectual
contribution to society WHILE reducing our collective carbon footprint
on the Earth. The format is ancient and pan-cultural and it works for
any topic!
The council website has reading materials, a guide to facilitating
councils - a unique equalizing format that in and of itself will be
curative for us heady types , guiding questions (which can be modified,
of course), and videos to give you a sense of what they're like. They
have been conducted at universities, with students, faculty (physical,
natural social scientists and humanists), mixed student/faculty/admin
groups, with activists, and community members- they also exist now
around this country and abroad.
In my experience, ongoing councils go deeper; they can easily
accommodate the emotional impacts of working on climate change that Kate
points to from that Mother Jones article, as well as the tensions we
experience between what we feel we must, want and should do re: air
travel. They can get practical, but more than anything, they offer a way
to safely break the silence on these difficult issues.
And wouldn't that be great modeling for others?!
Best,
Susi
On 7/11/2019 5:03 PM, Kate O'NEILL wrote:
Hi all,
To chime in with Kathy Harrison’s point re APSA, I’m hoping to follow
my predecessors as ESS chair to keep prodding this on the ISA agenda -
I think ISA has the same problems with the Convention hotels (after
all actually having the ability to do powerpoint presentations is
fairly recent). We have tried it out for a few people at GEP board
meetings over the years, in part for accessibility. But it speaks to
all the larger problems with Convention hotels - e.g. labor practices
and everything else that goes along with them. But solutions, such as
bolstering regional conferences, are out there.
On the campus side, the University of California is including an
offset program for administrative travel I believe (for the rest of us
they’ve done it by slashing our travel budgets, did I say that out
loud?). But again, the UC system has an ambitious climate goal being
undermined by climate change itself - UC Berkeley has traditionally
been an air-conditioning free zone but we’re starting to need to
reconsider this, and quickly. In other words, there are lots of larger
struggles going on as well at this institutional level, and that’s the
one I see as currently most important.
It’s really difficult as everyone points out - perhaps some of you
have seen this piece
<https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2019/07/weight-of-the-world-climate-change-scientist-grief/?fbclid=IwAR12vP8Yzo63LtZGlApgPI5gTu4VwFQw0HrFi1BCHB-2KnG1CFP8SwKHUGw> in
Mother Jones which came out just now and is very relevant to much of
our work, on emotional and psychological on climate scientists (some
really interesting points on how to teach future climate scientists -
social, natural, humanities). Hopefully we’re coming to a point where
we know we need to buy each other up rather than knock each other
down, and those strategies are available.
Best to all,
Kate
On Jul 11, 2019, at 9:21 AM, Linda Shi <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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] <mailto:[email protected]>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Debra Javeline
<[email protected] <mailto:[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 [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web
visithttps://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 [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web
visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gep-ed/DM6PR04MB649675FDC3A794AFDDC1AFEFC9F30%40DM6PR04MB6496.namprd04.prod.outlook.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gep-ed/DM6PR04MB649675FDC3A794AFDDC1AFEFC9F30%40DM6PR04MB6496.namprd04.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D.
Director, Susanne Moser Research & Consulting
Web: www.susannemoser.com
Email: [email protected]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If there is one thing you watch, watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAmmUIEsN9A&feature=youtu.be
--
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/e9ada8c4-8ac4-331e-b72f-41940ab82801%40susannemoser.com.
