My take is to focus on the positive benefits your work brings to the planet and its people; if you are worried about the cost-benefit ratio of your actions you have limited purchase focusing on the cost side, but the benefit side has a lot of headroom.
Costs matter, just don't fixate them. Marc Levy On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 8:47 AM, DG Webster <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Thanks for posting on such an important topic. It's an issue we've > discussed at length in the Environmental Studies Section business meetings > at ISA. We eventually concluded that face-to-face interactions do have > substantial benefits with relatively minor costs (as Wil and Rich > established) and should not be abandoned entirely. However, it is up to > each individual to decide how to balance their concern re: climate change > and their professional travel activities. Personally, I go to far fewer > conferences than I could every year and, aside from ISA, I try to select > conferences that are nearby or to combine conference and research > activities to get more out of the miles traveled. I've also tried virtual > participation on panels, though I think you may be over optimistic there. > I've yet to find a conference or teaching venue where it's possible to > virtually interact with the audience and speaking to a silent screen is an > unnerving experience. > > Others in the section make their own choices on conference participation > but I think that most try to maximize the quality of these experiences > while minimizing the quantity of travel. That said, participants in ESS or > the GEP-ED listserve are the proverbial choir on issues like this. Even > APSA and ISA aren't such large venues when compared to meetings like APA > and AGU or those of professional associations outside of the academy. > Convincing the broader public to consider the environmental costs of their > decisions--whether about travel or consumption more generally--is a core > problem studied by many on this listserve and is a tough nut to crack. > Continual self-assessment is critical, so it's great that you raised this > issue, but we should not lose sight of the bigger picture. > > best, > dgwebster > > > > On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 10:02 PM, HARRIS, Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > >> At long last, someone in a position to do something has admitted that >> scholars/teachers jetting around to conferences is morally questionable >> (not least because today's information technologies allow far more >> collaboration than was possible at conferences even quite recently): >> >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/06/us/setting-aside-a-scholarly-get-together-for-the-planets-sake.html?ref=earth&_r=0 >> >> It will be interesting to see where this goes. Will it overcome the >> willful ignorance of so many scholars -- those who think that THEIR work is >> so vital as to justify conference travel -- that such voluntary behavior is >> contributing, albeit perhaps in individually small ways, to profound human >> suffering and death in the future through climate change? Even a tiny >> contribution to someone else's death seems to call into question conference >> travel (and most other travel, at least by auto or airplane). >> >> I've broached this topic on this list several times over the years, so I >> realize that it's not likely to get any traction, and that there will be >> all sorts of excuses for continuing business as usual (“How dare you deny >> young scholars the right to collaborate” [these are the same young scholars >> who collaborate 24/7 on their iPhones, etc.]; “Collaborating via video >> conferencing [etc.] just isn’t the same as talking in person” [but there’s >> evidence that collaborating remotely can result in more scholarly >> productivity] – that sort of thing). >> >> ISA, APSA and all of the other big academic associations, including those >> devoted to environmental issues, seem to have conferences as their core >> business models. They don’t want to change. And we scholars don’t help. We >> love our conferences, right? And we, like most people, always want to leave >> it to others, probably people in the future, or governments or >> corporations, to change things. Of course we don't think about it >> consciously (so as to avoid guilt, maybe), but our attitude seems to >> something along the lines of "I teach about environmental solutions, so I >> don't have to be part of them myself," or, even more powerfully, "My >> research shows that institutions matter more than individuals, so I can >> justify living as I do." How many decades more will scholars take these and >> similar views, and continue to set the wrong example? >> >> I wonder what our students, particularly those who study climate change, >> think each time we jet off to a conference? The word “hypocrite” instantly >> comes to mind. >> >> -- >> 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]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > D.G. Webster > Assistant Professor > Environmental Studies Program > Dartmouth College > 6182 Steele Hall > Hanover, NH 03755 > phone: 603-646-0213 > http://www.dartmouth.edu/~envs/faculty/webster.html > > -- > 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]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
