University of California, Santa Barbara, home to 2,749 academic staff and 25,976 students (Fall 2018), regularly calculates the size of its carbon footprint. (The assessment includes the immediate campus and the facilities and activities that support it (e.g., campus housing) as well as the vehicle fleet.) The university has discovered that roughly one third of its carbon footprint comes from faculty and staff flying to conferences, talks, and meetings, equals the total annual carbon footprint of a city of 27,500 people in the Philippines.

Suggestions for reducing professional air travel, sourced from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2019/04/18/12-scholars-share-ideas-reducing-carbon-emissions-academic-travel-opinion, are to:

• Experiment with virtual platforms;
• Organize regional hub conferences;
• Hold fewer conferences;
• Hold conferences in airport hubs;
• Limit overseas conferences;
• Experiment with coordinating conference timing;
• Invite speakers to give talks remotely;
• Invite fewer distant speakers and ask for more work from each one;
• Focus on making a single flight serve multiple purposes;
• Build carbon offsets into the funding of conferences;
• Minimize the carbon impacts of the conference itself;
• Envision new ways to build community online;
• Convene online reading or discussion groups; and
• Make best use of the setting.

If I may, I will simplify your topic of discussion as follow:

"What's the point of asking somebody to quit smoking if you are still smoking?" Or, "Does it sound weird if a lecturer keeps on talking air pollution caused by traffic but he himself driving to campus everyday?"

Well, if you are not an extreme environmentalist, you may find that it is acceptable, bscause the term "sustainable development" does include the aspect of economic development.

There is no way to stop development, as peoples are always seeking for better quality of living or advantages brought by the modern lifestyle. The only thing that we can do is to try to slow down the pace of damage brought to the environment.

Nevertheless, I do believe that technology can help to build a more sustainable world. Especially in the era of 5G, tele-conference might be possible.

University of California, Santa Barbara, home to 2,749 academic staff and 25,976 students (Fall 2018), regularly calculates the size of its carbon footprint. (The assessment includes the immediate campus and the facilities and activities that support it (e.g., campus housing) as well as the vehicle fleet.) The university has discovered that roughly one third of its carbon footprint comes from faculty and staff flying to conferences, talks, and meetings, equals the total annual carbon footprint of a city of 27,500 people in the Philippines.

Suggestions for reducing professional air travel, sourced from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2019/04/18/12-scholars-share-ideas-reducing-carbon-emissions-academic-travel-opinion, are to:

• Experiment with virtual platforms;
• Organize regional hub conferences;
• Hold fewer conferences;
• Hold conferences in airport hubs;
• Limit overseas conferences;
• Experiment with coordinating conference timing;
• Invite speakers to give talks remotely;
• Invite fewer distant speakers and ask for more work from each one;
• Focus on making a single flight serve multiple purposes;
• Build carbon offsets into the funding of conferences;
• Minimize the carbon impacts of the conference itself;
• Envision new ways to build community online;
• Convene online reading or discussion groups; and
• Make best use of the setting.

This is where technology can/should assist. For example conferences and symposia could shift to virtual rather than being held in a specific place. In this manner the participation could be even more inclusive as most researchers/scholars may not have the financial resources to travel across the world to learn, interact with other scholars and share their knowledge. However, given the lucrative opportunities that commonly conferences and symposia offer to organizing groups and associations it may be impossible to convert these programs to virtual events as these remain a well established business with employees and other capital resources. The transportation industry is continuing business as usual, with promotions that become even more economical to travelers on a tight budget......and the show goes on to the last barrel of oil....I am afraid!

If you watch the documentary "cowspiracy" it will tell you that the biggest impact on the planet is the meat we eat, more than the transportation.

The facts in this documentary seems to be disputed by scientific literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowspiracy

Still cows are a significant contributor to methane emissions and eating much less of this meat seems a very easy way to do better.

nice thinking...I appreciate it..

Given the impacts (in terms of carbon gas emissions) that conferences and symposia entail, I would urge scientific organizations/societies/groups to revisit their agendas for meetings with the idea of offering most of these events as virtual programs only.

agree ... but let's be honest ... most of us are going to meeting for coffee breaks and to discuss with people (and it is lucky !), not only to assist to long afternoons of speechs ... The balance between the Carbon cost and the inter-human relationships. I'd be afraid to see a scientific word with everyone remaining in his office connected to 3 Whattsapp conferences .

Interesting discussion.

Really interesting view point.

Attending Conferences and being in awe was one of the very first experiences and that uplifted the otherwise would have been mundane research in lab. I don't think the aura can't be recreated virtually.

Although travel was mostly through railroad.

Can someone also through some light on the carbon footprint of an online virtual conference with Video -conferencing - internet and the many servers around the world that needs to be cooled very bit we share online.

Aslo, most of us are now virtually online 24x7 - I suppose there a environmental cost to it too.

Hello everybody. Interesting and necessary discussion in these times of climate crisis. Another important aspect to keep in mind is the distance to the conference. For example, the Max Planck Society (MPS) is encouraging travel by plane for journeys less than 1000 km if they can be completed by train in less than 12 hours. At the date of the 04th of October 2019, 300 people from the staff signed the Call for Voluntary Commitment.

https://owncloud.gwdg.de/index.php/s/iVGokEC6P5dY1Yq

This is a very important discussion and I think that the decision is not only a decision about attending conferences - I think the question is broader and applies to most our consumption habits.

Take internet use: 4% of world wide carbon emmissions and 27% of that for porn. https://theshiftproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-02.pdf.

Take our eating habits in a statistic applied to the US: 83% of household emissions are accounted for food and only 11% for transport (http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/carbon-footprint-factsheet=).

So the question to me is not will I go to conferences or not, because I also do not ask myself do I use a computer and surf the internet or not, but rather: Is it necessary to [fill in any consumed entity] considering the size of its effect on the world beyond myself? Maybe we can still attend conferences, watch movies eat meat, use facebook but only when necessary - and I admit - here is a problem, who determines "necessary"?

Hi

Amazing thought. I believe that people usually travel to conferences and meetings to either present their work or to discuss important issues. Generally work presentations involve someone from the authors. No one presents data on behalf of anyone else, except in case of collaboration. I have never encountered events where there was an option to let anyone speak or present on your behalf, which is also understood. So if you wish to share it, you get to travel.

Second, Academic degree qualifications require a minimum number of presentations on regional and international level to pass.So another factor.

Third, I believe the lack of expertise in certain parts of globes, which push people to travel to other places to learn and share.

I use boats for my surveys and a vehicle to work in the forest. Both run on petrol/diesel and my work can not be done without them. My species is critically threatened and in imminent need for conservation. So it is a deal that i need to set with myself where i can balance the pollution and conserve the species.

Same way, it is upon the person to figure out how important and effective the travel is for the public and if it is worth adding more to the pollution.