Hans,
You paraphrased a slide thus:
Here is my paraphrase of the slide at 17:40, using Kevin's
words:
Who is in that 1 percent?
Every climate scientist.
Every climate journalist and pontificator
All academics in OECD (and elsewhere)
Anyone who gets on a plane at least once a year
In the UK anyone earning above 30,000 pounds a year
2 questions:
1. Do you know of US figures on the earnings level that put people in
the 1 percent of emissions?
2. Can you steer me to the background for Kevin Anderson's slide that
you paraphrased?
Gene
On May 20, 2013, at 9:10 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Dear Joseph, Gar, Patrick, and others:
>
>
> Here is my thesis, broken down into five points.
>
> (1) This late in the game, suddenly and drastically limiting
> consumption of high fossil fuel products by the prosperous
> middle class is the best and perhaps even the only way we can
> initiate the changes allowing the world to stay within the 2
> degrees limit. Production measures will follow after the
> producers realize that their market has started to shrink.
>
> (2) You don't need policies to limit consumption. You can
> for instance decide no longer to fly without waiting for
> policies forbidding you to fly or making it too expensive to
> fly.
>
> (3) For instance, if all the subscribers of PEN-L were to
> decide that from now on they no longer fly to conferences,
> this would not remain un-noticed and make an impact. Pen-L
> might in this way become a pioneer for academia and
> play a historic role.
>
> (4) Once this shift in consumption has begun and say 20% of
> the population is doing it voluntarily and it has become a
> cultural force, then we have to put rules in place so that
> the other 80 percent have to pull their weight too. If
> there is a movement with voluntary efforts, ways have to be
> found to discourage free riders because otherwise this
> movement will not last.
>
> (5) for this purpose, a downstream carbon rationing scheme
> is the best policy instrument I can think of. Although I
> fully agree with Patrick's critique of cap and trade as a
> bogus solution (I arranged Larry Lohmann's visit in Utah in
> 2006), I think carbon rationing is immune to the critiques
> of privatizing the sky and bogus solution.
>
>
> By coincidence, the Bill Totten mailing list last night
> emailed a blog by the climate researcher Kevin Anderson,
> one of the originators of the budget approach to climate
> change policy. In this blog, Anderson is not talking about
> climate science but about economics. The title of the blog
> is:
>
> Hypocrites in the Air: Should Climate Change Academics
> Lead by Example?
>
> http://kevinanderson.info/blog/hypocrites-in-the-air-should-climate-change-academics-lead-by-example/
>
> Anderson makes similar points in this youtube video:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KumLH9kOpOI
>
> Around 16:40 he says: 50% of emissions come from 1% of the
> world's population. Who are those 1%? He tells his audience
> to look in the mirror.
>
> Here is my paraphrase of the slide at 17:40, using Kevin's
> words:
>
> Who is in that 1 percent?
> Every climate scientist.
> Every climate journalist and pontificator
> All academics in OECD (and elsewhere)
> Anyone who gets on a plane at least once a year
> In the UK anyone earning above 30,000 pounds a year
>
> Are we willing to change our lives? We have that choice.
> Demand opportunities dwarf supply opportunities in the short
> run. We can do this today.
>
> Kevin Anderson himself is no longer flying. He took a train
> to attend a climate conference in Shanghai. I know of
> another climate communicator in England, George Marshall,
> who has publicly announced over 10 years ago that he is not
> flying.
>
> I myself, Hans G Ehrbar, stopped flying in 2006, made one
> exception in 2010 which I regret now. My son in Washington
> DC had to re-schedule his wedding last year so that I could
> use Spring break to come by train. I refused an expense-paid
> invitation to Singapore for September 2012 because I could
> not justify flying. My aunt in Germany, who was like a
> mother to me, just passed away at the age of 97 without
> having seen me since 2006 since I no longer fly.
>
> If all subscribers to Pen-L would decide no longer to fly
> but only attend conferences they can reach by bus or train,
> this would make a difference. It would set a signal, it
> could be the beginning of a movement. It would also be not
> entirely foolish career-wise, because it is not just one
> individual. Your competitors in the job and publications
> market are not flying either, i.e., it is still a level
> playing field.
>
>
> Who is in? Can we establish a list of non-flying economists?
> Which web page should we use to publicize the growing list
> of academic economists taking a no-flying pledge?
>
>
> Hans G Ehrbar.
>
>
> ------- Start of forwarded message -------
> From: Bill Totten <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 09:01:35 +0900
> Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Hypocrites in the Air
>
>
> Should climate change academics lead by example?
>
> by Kevin Anderson
>
> http://kevinanderson.info/blog (April 12 2013)
>
> (The arguments outlined in this commentary apply equally to
> any politician, civil servant, journalist, NGO or business
> leader calling for stringent mitigation)
>
> From the World Bank and PricewaterhouseCoopers through to
> Stern and the International Energy Agency, analyses
> increasingly demonstrate how, without urgent and radical
> reductions in emissions, global temperatures are set to
> rise by four degrees Celsius or higher - with, as the IEA
> emphasise, "devastating" repercussions for the planet.
>
> But whose responsibility is it to initiate such radical
> mitigation?
>
> *****
>
> My partner and I recently arrived in Sicily for a couple of
> weeks' camping and rock climbing - not exactly sun-kissed
> limestone (fifteen degrees Celsius and damp), but still a
> little warmer than the Arctic blasts battering the UK at the
> moment.
>
> As we try to avoid flying we've travelled here by train:
> Manchester to London and then onto Paris, overnight Paris to
> Rome, a day strolling between the Pantheon and the
> Colosseum, before another overnight train to Palermo in the
> North West corner of Sicily.
>
> The journey took longer than flying, but we get a day each
> way to explore Rome and overnight travel to and from Sicily,
> so in terms of price and time it isn't that different to
> flying. But when it comes to emissions I stand by the
> arguments I made following my train trip to Shanghai in 2011
> (for work on that occasion). At a system level, trains have
> an order of magnitude lower emissions than the metal bird
> alternative - the saving is that significant.
>
> If my arguments are valid, surely those of us intimately
> engaged in climate change should, at the very least, curtail
> our use of the most carbon-profligate activity (per hour)
> humankind has thus far developed.
>
> For those interested, the arguments I previously posted on
> the Tyndall Centre website are repeated below. In addition,
> I've included a few thoughts in response to the comeback
> often made - "those of us with children can't afford the
> longer journey times as we have overriding parental
> commitments".
>
> *****
>
> Slow and low - the way to go: A systems view of travel
> emissions
>
> When planning the journey from Broadbottom (UK), to
> Shanghai, and also since my return, I have been asked
> frequently about the associated emissions:
>
> * "I thought trains weren't much better than planes, what's
> the difference?"
>
> * "Was it worth the effort for whatever you saved?"
>
> On the face of it, these and many similar queries are
> completely reasonable questions to ask. But, in my view,
> they miss the point, and without trying to be overly
> provocative (that's for later), I don't think they are so
> reasonable - particularly from the array of informed experts
> who asked them. So why do I think the questions are
> unreasonable - and what would I suggest as an alternative
> framing for assessing emissions from travel?
>
> Analysis
>
> The following blog-style analysis is a mix of provocation,
> parody and some different ways of thinking about emissions
> from our travel. I've tried to make a coherent case on the
> basis of argument, but some of the language may not be what
> you would typically find in an academic paper. Nonetheless,
> I stand by the well-intentioned thrust of the case and if
> anyone has any substantive disagreements I'd be pleased to
> hear them. It is intended to hold a mirror up to the climate
> change community - and as with all mirrors, it can make for
> grim viewing. I know: it's a fit 36-year-old who looks in
> the mirror - but a less fit grey-haired and 49-year-old
> bloke who stares back at me!
>
> My concerns about the questions I've been asked fall into
> three broad and related categories. They were asked by folk
> who work intimately on climate change as a system. But not
> one person asked a systems-level question, 'How are you
> going to compare the plane and train emissions?' - or -
> 'Have you thought about rebound, where time saved via faster
> travel is spent on additional carbon-emitting activities?'
>
> Instead, all of the questions relegated climate change to a
> purely technical, quantitative or efficiency issue - none of
> which address what we need to do to reduce total emissions.
>
> The opportunity costs, rebound effect, carbon intensity of
> time, technical and financial lock-in/lock-out, early
> adoption, role models, diffusion and so on, are all concepts
> the climate change community are familiar with. Asking
> emissions questions without direct or indirect recourse to
> any of these is, in my view, neither responsible nor
> reasonable.
>
> Unreasonable reasonableness - another Rumsfeldian paradox
>
> The first argument for my concluding the reasonable
> questions aren't so reasonable relates to it being academics
> working on climate change (amongst others) who asked them.
>
> For the last decade the language of climate change used in
> proposals for funding, research council calls, brochures,
> government documents and so on, has been awash with terms
> such as 'whole systems', 'systems thinking',
> 'interdisciplinary', and the like. Put us in a room and
> we'll espouse eloquently the virtues of such approaches,
> noting if we're to tackle big issues like climate change we
> have to think on a systems level. But as soon as there's
> something that can be readily quantified we're like moths to
> a flame: here's something familiar to our 2000 years of
> reductionism, some knowledge - but without
> understanding. The virtues of systems thinking that we were
> waxing lyrical about moments before are quickly forgotten in
> the mad scrabble to get to the numbers. We know what to do
> with numbers and, as Lord Kelvin so persuasively put it,
> 'When you measure what you are speaking of and express it in
> numbers, you know that on which you are discoursing, but
> when you cannot measure it and express it in numbers your
> knowledge is of a very meagre and unsatisfactory kind'. Well
> I'm not sure this always holds, and when we do use numbers
> they have to be meaningful. Isolated numbers tell us little
> about the system, and worse, they can lead to decisions
> based only on the bit we can measure. This may be worse than
> doing nothing or taking random action; at the very least
> numbers have to be contextual.
>
> So having made the argument that systems thinking requires
> some systems thinking itself, the following sections outline
> more precisely defined and technical matters that underpin
> my concern that the climate change community continues to
> take overly narrow views of systems-level issues. In 2011,
> we ought to know better.
>
> System Saving Number One: Relative dimensions in distance,
> time and emissions
>
> If we accept temperature as an adequate proxy for our
> various concerns about climate change, then there is broad
> acceptance we must stay below a two degrees Celsus increase
> in global temperature. Thus the climate is only really
> concerned with our cumulative emissions over a relatively
> short period of time - a period longer than the Broadbottom
> to Shanghai train journey, but stretching only about as far
> as 2020 for two degrees Celsus (and for four degrees Celsus
> sometime around 2030). There is some mathematics behind
> these dates linked to how high we are already on the
> emissions curves, the 'real' emission growth trend,
> realistic peaks and the proportion of our carbon budget
> we've squandered already. See Beyond Dangerous Climate
> Change {1}.
>
> Coming back to the train and its emissions relative to other
> transport modes: from a systems perspective, it's a good
> enough approximation to consider the carbon dioxide per
> passenger kilometre for planes, trains and automobiles to be
> similar. Okay, alone in a Ferrari with your foot to the
> floor will be many times worse than being sardined into one
> of EasyJet's relatively new aircraft. Similarly, four people
> cosying up in a small Fiat Panda will knock the socks off
> any scheduled airline (that is, have much lower carbon
> dioxide emissions). But put a couple of academics in a
> diesel family saloon and any disparity in emissions between
> the modes over the same distance will be lost in the system
> noise. The difference, of course, arises from the distance
> we deem reasonable to travel - and really this is less about
> the distance and more about the time.
>
> Attending an 'essential' conference to save the world from
> climate change in Venice, Cancun or some other holiday
> resort, is perfectly do-able by plane. However, the rising
> emission trends don't seem to have registered the sterling
> work we have achieved at such events. Perhaps if we flew to
> more of them, emissions would really start to come down - we
> may even spot some flying pigs en route. Instead, junk the
> plane and get together with a few other UK speakers heading
> to the same event, cram yourself in a trusty Fiat Panda and
> set off for Venice. Somewhere around Dartford, what was
> previously 'essential' begins to take on a different hue,
> and by Dover a whole new meaning has evolved. Essential has
> become a relative term, dependent on: Can we get there by
> plane? Are our friends also attending? Is it somewhere nice
> to visit (or name-drop)? Will we be taxied around? Are we
> staying in a plush hotel?
>
> This is where the first major saving resides: slow forms of
> travel fundamentally change our perception of the
> essential. We consequently travel less (at least in
> distance), and given that air travel is the most
> emission-profligate activity per hour (short of Formula 1
> and possibly space tourism) the emission-related opportunity
> costs are knocked into a cocked hat. Of course, as climate
> change specialists we are exempt from such analysis - our
> message truly is essential - so we're the exception that
> should be able to carry on emitting as before.
>
> Ah, yes, and business folk - we need them to drive the
> economy. Tourists are yet another really important economic
> driver (not to mention the great cultural gains from staying
> in western-style hotels with like-minded folk and observing
> other cultures pass by the windscreens of our air
> conditioned taxis). Next there are the pop stars and
> celebrities - the world would be such a dull place if they
> weren't able to prance about at international festivals. The
> football and tennis players must test their mettle in the
> international arena - and of course they need their fans to
> cheer them on.
>
> We can then turn to whole industrial sectors' that put
> forward an equally bewildering array of 'reasons' why they
> should be the exceptions and exempt from major emission
> reductions. This extends to government departments, climate
> change think tanks and some NGOs - with the remaining less
> deserving sectors and individuals taking up the slack. It
> really is a puzzler as to why emissions keep on rising - all
> the more so since fuel prices have rocketed to levels way in
> excess of any carbon price economists previously told us
> would collapse the economy! Still, a few more international
> conferences and guidance from the carbon-market gurus will
> have us turn the corner on this one, I'm sure.
>
> Obviously these caricatures are so far from reality that we
> don't recognise ourselves in any of them - but nevertheless
> the message is clear. Travelling slowly forces us to travel
> much less, to be much more selective in what events we
> attend, and to endeavour to get more out of those trips we
> do take. Fewer trips and potentially longer stays: not
> rocket science - just climate change basics.
>
> System Saving Number Two: Iteration, adaptive capacity and
> indulgences - how to avoid carbon lock-in
>
> It may be apocryphal, but I have heard from several
> reputable sources that China is in the process of
> constructing 150 new international airports. This perhaps
> sounds implausible, but China's population is approximately
> 22 times the UK's, and the UK has around 25 international
> airports. Proportionately, China would need 550
> international airports to match the per capita equivalent of
> the UK. Suddenly their construction rate seems less
> implausible. Either way, flying to Shanghai sends a very
> clear market signal: expand your airport. And that is
> exactly what they're doing right now, so they're reading our
> repeated signal loud and clear.
>
> But how is that worse than expanding the rail network?
> Firstly, there is potential to radically improve the
> efficiency of train travel - until very recently efficiency
> has not been a major concern for the industry. This is not
> the case for aviation. Jet engines and current plane designs
> have pushed the orthodox design envelope about as far as it
> can go; so one to two per cent per annum improvement is
> about as much as can be wrung out of the aviation industry
> in the short to medium term. In the longer term things may
> change, but this will not be within the short timeframe
> associated with climate change. Consequently, flying now
> locks the future into a high-carbon aviation
> infrastructure. By contrast, trains have substantial
> efficiency potential (though this may be compromised with
> the very high-speed trains) and, more significantly, trains
> can run on electricity (many already do) and electricity can
> be low-carbon (some of it already is). Trains can also have
> regenerative breaking (tricky with aircraft) and overnight
> trains can be used to flatten demand curves (and cut back on
> hotel emissions). Planes are currently locked into
> high-carbon kerosene whilst trains already have several
> low-carbon options.
>
> So there you have it. Jump on a plane and you send a suite
> of very clear market signals. Please buy some more aircraft
> that will operate for twenty to thirty years and have a
> design life of forty years. Please build some more
> airports. Please divert public transport funds so passengers
> (and shoppers) can travel to the airport on low-carbon
> trains or trams. Please expand the airport car park for when
> bags are just too heavy to lug on a tram. Please keep
> producing the black stuff - without it we will have invested
> billions in an industry dependent on kerosene; lock-in par
> excellence. They don't tell you all this on the back of the
> ticket - though there may be some oh so useful advice on
> carbon offsetting. Again, is it any wonder that emissions
> aren't coming down when we, the high-emitters, can buy
> indulgences so easily and cheaply?
>
> System Saving Number Three A: Opportunity costs constrain
> carbon
>
> Here we turn to the old chestnut, opportunity
> costs. Basically if I had flown - and assuming the direct
> emissions per capita were the same between the plane and the
> Trans-Siberian Express - then what would I have been doing
> for the time I wasn't on the train?
>
> Let's say the plane took two days - one day each way (UK to
> Shanghai), while the train took a total of twenty days (ten
> each way), leaving an opportunity cost period of eighteen
> days. If at home, I certainly would have been taking the
> train to and from work each day. I'd probably have had
> around four longer UK trips, typically at around 650
> kilometres per return trip. I'd have visited a few
> rock-climbing venues in my immediate vicinity around the
> Peak District (say 200 to 300 kilometres in total, probably
> shared with a couple of others in the car); I'd have watched
> a few movies, listened to the radio a lot - and all the
> usual stuff. The total distance travelled would be
> equivalent to 3000 to 5000 kilometres, that is, very roughly
> ten to twenty per cent of the Trans-Siberian trip
> distance. But if I was a regular flyer, in twenty days I may
> have taken a flight or two, and if I was one of the great
> and the good this would have been business or first
> class. Added to this (if we treat offsetting with the
> disdain it deserves) the opportunity-cost emissions could
> easily have exceeded those from the full return journey to
> China by train. And if offsetting had been used, I take the
> view that the emissions would have been still higher
> (increased lock-in, reduced incentive for the 'donor' to
> change behaviour and the economic multiplier effect for the
> 'recipient'. See: The Inconvenient Truth of Carbon
> Offsetting {2}. All of this assumes that during my twelve
> days in China I emitted roughly the same quantity of carbon
> dioxide per day as if I'd remained at home in the UK. This
> is probably not too unreasonable, but again if I were one of
> the great and good, I'd no doubt would have had much higher
> emissions from further business-class travel to champion my
> low carbon message in yet more exotic venues.
>
> By including opportunity costs, this slow-travel stuff
> really starts to notch up the carbon savings for those of us
> who travel a lot - particularly if it includes international
> travel.
>
> System Saving number Three B: The slippery slope: thinking
> low-carbon engenders thinking low-carbon which engenders ...
>
> A final point worthy of a brief note: making the transition
> from fast to slower forms of long-distance travel may
> engender slower forms of travel elsewhere. Once we've made
> such a transition, it becomes more 'natural' to avoid taxis
> and instead to seek out the public transport, walking or
> cycling options we espouse for others. Taxis are another
> market signal for more roads. Jamming our bodies onto the
> Tube (or Beijing subway), or waiting for the reliable
> late-night bus from Norwich station to the University of
> East Anglia, all give much lower carbon signals, especially
> if supported with the occasional letter, either chastising
> the London Mayor for not doing more with the Tube and local
> trains, or complimenting Norwich bus planners - or however
> we think admonishment and praise should be meted out.
>
> So there you have it: my potted account as to why I think
> the climate change community needs to put its own house in
> order before wagging its hypocritical finger at others or
> espousing low-carbon solutions to ministers that we simply
> wouldn't accept for ourselves.
>
> Final thoughts: Can slow travel be justified in a busy
> university life?
>
> My guess is that a common retort to my ramblings will be,
> 'it's okay for him, I'm too busy to take such a long time
> off work, it's just not practical - I've got to live in the
> real world'. But the real world has us flying half way
> around the world to give banal twenty minute presentations
> to audiences who know what we're going to say. Even if our
> talks are riveting canters through the intellectual surf,
> are they really so important that we have to be there in
> person and in an instant, before launching off to dispense
> our pearls of wisdom to another packed house in another
> exotic location? Isn't our situation emblematic of the
> problems (such as fast and self-important lives for the few,
> no time for thinking, reflexivity and humility) that we are
> abjectly failing to shed any light on?
>
> My life is perhaps not as busy as some, but I still clock up
> a fair few work hours, have meetings to attend,
> administration to do and research to deliver on. The train
> was certainly not as simple to organise as a plane - though
> next time it would be much easier, and I wouldn't worry so
> much about getting everything perfect and having back-up
> plans in place. Long and unusual journeys inevitably take
> more planning, not least to ensure the time spent travelling
> can be productive. And in terms of cost, the reimbursement
> system is just not set yet up to support such journeys, so
> you'll likely have to dip into your pocket, as long train
> journeys typically cost more than taking to the
> air. Moreover, receipts don't come with purchases of strange
> foods from sellers on station platforms and odd bits of
> accommodation.
>
> So what of the work you can do while travelling? I had
> planned and expected my many hours of mildly enforced
> confinement to provide a good working environment. But I
> wasn't prepared for what turned out to be the most
> productive period of my academic career, particularly on the
> return journey. During the outward trip, I read a range of
> papers and managed to write another on shipping and climate
> change. However, after having spent twelve days in China
> bombarded with fresh experiences, new ways of thinking and
> new information, the return journey was a wonderful
> opportunity to begin to make sense of it all, embedding much
> of it in a paper which a colleague and I had been working on
> for the past year. This was the first time I had actually
> put pen to paper with regard to that research.
>
> The train's ability to remove many of the choices that
> clutter my daily life gave me the seclusion and
> concentration I needed to set to work on what has proved a
> very challenging paper. By the time Moscow arrived, I had
> completed about 75 per cent of the writing; this would have
> taken another six months had I flown to Shanghai.
>
> From a productivity perspective, the twenty-day train
> journey easily trumped the two-day
> flight. Counter-intuitive perhaps, but I remain convinced
> that a carefully planned train journey not only delivers
> lower emissions by an order of magnitude, but facilitates
> the process of research in a way that universities and
> daily life simply can't match. Add to that the 'slower'
> ethos that such journeys engender, and I think there may be
> early signs of making a meaningful transition to a
> low-carbon future - or at least a bridging ethos - while we
> wait for the panacea of low-carbon technologies to become
> the norm.
>
> *****
>
> Addendum: Children, families and slow travel ...
>
> Amongst the wealth of responses to the original blog, a
> recurrent theme was "I really can't see how those of us with
> young children could spend so much time travelling slowly
> when we could, by flying, be back home quickly and spend
> more time with our families". On a more altruistic note,
> several colleagues with children suggested that they "should
> perhaps avoid any longer-distance travel, as the emotional
> pull to return quickly is inevitably very strong".
>
> I certainly can empathise with the challenge of balancing
> work and family pulls on our time. Ultimately, climate
> change is mostly about families and friends - but surely not
> only ours in the here and now?
>
> If the science is broadly correct and the emissions trends
> continue, then we're heading for enormous changes for many
> families even in the short term. These families may not be
> our own - much more likely they'll be those who have not
> contributed to the problem, have little income and live in
> areas geographically more vulnerable to climate change
> impacts. So the choice is about whose family and friends
> matter most. We choose to fly back to be with our family as
> quickly as possible - so as not to be away for more than a
> few days. But the repercussions (okay, not on a one to one
> basis perhaps) are for another family in another place to
> lose their home, suffer food and water shortages, social and
> community pressures and wider conflicts - to put at risk the
> very fabric of their families and communities.
>
> Moreover, our reducing time away from our families by using
> fast and high carbon travel also has longer-term
> repercussions for our own children. Are we rushing back for
> the sake of our own families or for 'our' individual
> engagement with our own families? This is a subtle but I
> think important distinction. Are we concerned about our
> families only whilst we're around to enjoy and benefit from
> them, or are we more altruistically concerned regardless of
> our own immediate returns? When we're dead and buried our
> children will likely still be here dealing with the legacy
> of our inaction today; do we discount their futures at such
> a rate as to always favour those family activities that 'we'
> can join in with?
>
> I'm not talking about this solely in an abstract manner;
> most of my immediate family have gone on to more ethereal
> activity leaving me with an uncle in Scotland and another in
> Australia who is getting on in years and not in the best of
> health. I last saw him in 2004 and have since stuck to the
> difficult decision not to return to visit him. Okay I may
> relent one day, but for now I'm unable to reconcile my
> desire to share family memories with my fine Ozzie uncle and
> the fact that my visiting him jeopardises others' abilities
> to lead good lives with their families.
>
> Life in a changing climate is awash with such thorny issues
> and tough decisions. To me the guiding principle (supported
> by the mathematics) is that those of us responsible for the
> lion's share of emissions are the same group that need to
> drive emissions down - and fast.
>
> Technology alone cannot deliver the low carbon promise land
> in a timely manner. The future is in our hands now, our
> lifestyles, behaviours, practices and habits. If we are
> truly concerned about families (others as well as our own -
> now and in the future), then perhaps the overseas trip is
> not as 'essential' as when we could travel quickly by
> plane. Alternatively, if we still consider it an important
> trip, we must assess whether the additional time away from
> our family as a consequence of slower travel is compensated
> by the value of our message. The decisions just got
> tougher. Of course, it could be that we are that shining
> example of an exception to the rule - enlightened beings
> preaching real mitigation to our parishioners 32 thousand
> feet below.
>
> *****
>
> Is it really surprising that the hoi polloi are indifferent
> to our pronouncements and politicians pay only lip service
> to our analyses, when those of us working on climate change
> exhibit no desire to forego our own high-carbon lifestyles?
>
> Links:
>
> {1} http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/20.full.pdf+html
>
> {2}
> http://kevinanderson.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/The-inconvenient-truth-of-carbon-offsets-Pre-edit-version-.pdf
>
> http://kevinanderson.info/blog/hypocrites-in-the-air-should-climate-change-academics-lead-by-example/
>
> TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
> the appropriate link at the top or bottom of
> http://billtotten.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/hypocrites-in-the-air/
> _______________________________________________
> Rad-Green mailing list
> [email protected]
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
> - ------- End of forwarded message -------
> ------- End of forwarded message -------
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
