The top 1% starts at $367,000. Joel Blau
Eugene Coyle wrote: > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
