Scientists report that commercial jet travel may cause up to 50% of the local problems in public health and contribute significantly to unprecedented climate changes. Individually and collectively, scientists can stop contributing to catastrophic planetary heating caused by continued burning of fossil fuels. Do you have a problem with this proactive agenda: each and every one of us who regularly present papers or serve on panels at conferences can deliver our papers remotely and we can all reduce the number of conferences we attend. A "media Blitz" whereby every scientist who opts to attend a conference remotely posts it, or asks a local radio or television news station to give a minute of broadcast time showing an empty commercial jet airplane seat or private plane in its hangar with explanatory voice-over, will get the core message across: scientists not telling, but showing, the public by being live "action figures" and "role models" who are "casting a vote" for proper conduct in today's drastically changing world?
Source: https://physicsworld.com/a/dealing-with-a-climate-emergency/ Sequel:
https://physicsworld.com/a/work-travel-doubles-researchers-carbon-footprint/
Sounds great! I totally agree with you. That would be really useful. Tele-conferences/tele-communication are such effective methods and will definitely help.
"Scientists report that commercial jet travel is causing 50% of the problems in public health and unprecedented climate changes."
I have trouble with statements like that. 50% - based on what? Sensationalism doesn't help the scientific message.
John Francis Miller - Maybe you can help me to understand the following excerpt from PhysicsWorld, which is the topical source for my question here:
"We are instead concerned with community-wide action that changes the way we work and demonstrates to the wider public that global, collaborative activities like science may be sustainably carried out. It is essential that physics plays its part in a wider and growing call to action from across the scientific community. //
In late August, the climate activist Greta Thunberg crossed the Atlantic via a zero-emissions sailboat to speak at the UN Climate Action Summit on 23 September. She travelled that way to draw attention to the environmental cost of air travel, which many of us ignore. We’re all familiar with the senior scientist who jets in to give a conference talk before leaving for another event that evening or the next day. Given the carbon cost, it is hard to argue that this model of nomadic superstars who spend their summer in airports is justified, especially in an era where live-streamed TED talks can be watched by millions. In fact, a recent study by the University of British Columbia in Canada suggests that, beyond a low minimum level, more travel does nothing to improve scientific productivity. To put things into perspective, a recent investigation by the leading research Swiss institution ETH Zurich found that flights accounted for a staggering 50% of its emissions. Clearly urgent action is needed."
Here is the link: https://physicsworld.com/a/dealing-with-a-climate-emergency/ Yours sincerely
Nancy Ann Watanabe
Hi Nancy Ann Watanabe
The key statement is " To put things into perspective, a recent investigation by the leading research Swiss institution ETH Zurich found that flights accounted for a staggering 50% of its emissions."
i.e., 50% of ETH Zurich's emissions are due to air travel.
Personally, I believe the quality of conferences (and science in general) has declined significantly in the last two decades. Poor, too specialized research, too many presentations etc. Attendees (presenters and others) should question the reason why they need to go. I gave presentations at ACS meetings in 2017 and 2018. I also gave a webinar on the same topics which I then put on YouTube, and I answer a lot of questions on RG. The latter two give me far more visibility and I've made more clients - without having to leave home. More people have watched my videos than attended the conferences.
According to the most recent Physics World, we have to choose between mitigating the 1 degree C. rise in global temperature caused by fossil fuel use by commercial air jets, cars, etc., for example, and eating bread. Nutritionists in the USA recommend adults eat 4 to 6 slices of bread, but the 1 degree C. rise in temperature annually is soon to result in global drought impacting wheat production due to lack of water. Those of us who follow nutritionists' guidelines for a healthy daily diet will only be able to eat 2 to 3 slices of bread, at best, if we continue to use modes of transportation involving fossil fuel use and decide not to do anything. See this link:
https://physicsworld.com/a/drought-may-hit-half-worlds-wheat-at-once/
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers