Should academics fly at all?

It’s bad that I fly, but I’m going to find a golden offset mechanism, and compensate the full damage that my flying does to planet – perhaps 150%.

My take here is that if your employer or some fellowship or scholarship is paying for the flight, they should also pay for this offset. (As they should be paying a carbon tax.) And if they can’t afford the offset, they can’t afford the flight.

This is interesting. I have no easy answers either.

What immediately came to mind, but what I think you haven’t explicitly addressed, is the counterfactual. In a world where academics don’t fly, they don’t just Zoom into meetings, they also take the train, or bundle a bunch of events into a single trip. But that means that academics in the Global North are at an advantage, because you’d essentially get a North American series of events, where North American academics attend in person and everyone else Zooms in, and a European series. An academic based in the Netherlands like you (and like me, once upon a time) can easily take the train to London, Madrid, Berlin, or Stockholm, but what can an academic based in South America or Africa do?

I hear those kinds of reasons too, but I don’t think any of them really hold up. (7) may once have been plausible, but we are in emergency territory now. (2) is interesting, but there are good responses (you can offer to participate online; if they refuse, you can suggest they rethink, going forward; anyway, we do not standardly think it is permissible to cause harm just on the basis that if you don’t, someone else will, etc). So I think minimising flying is probably required at this point. Of course, the question is what minimising means. I can count on one hand the number of times in my life I have flown more than two hours to do an academic event. I may do so again, but it would probably be a once-in-a-decade thing at this point. But I do tend to fly within Europe a couple of times a year, and maybe I am just kidding myself that this is sustainable.

I do think we have to beware the thought that flying to e.g. the US is simply necessary, e.g. for career progression. Maybe I have harmed my own career by never having given a talk in the US (!), with the networking opportunities that implies. But overall I think I’ve done okay, and the less you fly, the more time you have to write, which all things considered suits me. But I can see how other people would think differently – for some people, maybe discussing things in person with key individuals in their debates is really important for the development of their ideas. For me, reading widely is the thing that is key, and I can do that anywhere.

A possible argument (11), though. As a scholar of global justice (amongst other things), I feel a lot of unease about doing talks more or less exclusively within Europe. Sure, I can do a zoom talk to China. But maybe that’s not a good substitute for engaging properly with academics who work there. I don’t know the answer to this one – it troubles me.

I’ve been through this thought-process recently, and saw it more of a balancing of considerations than there being a single argument either way.
This despite my increasing radicalisation against the fossil fuel industry!
Also, apparently the calculations of the impact of flying doesn’t include the water vapour contrails that can also have a very high climatic impact.

I would of course prefer to travel by land than plane where possible, but I found there was no way to get to Oslo for a conference and get back in time for an event in Oxford. Plus the expense was much greater due to the need to stay over in European cities overnight. Cost was a consideration because I am funding the trip myself, plus the extra time away from home.
The conference organiser(s) made it clear that the conference was to be in person, though there was mention of the possibility for hybrid if absolutely necessary.
So I decided to fly for the first time in quite a few years.
I will of course offset the emissions (also at personal expense), though I’m well aware of the criticisms of reliance on offsetting.
I would certainly hope that in the future there will be better rail connections which would allow a sleeper-train trip to Oslo. That wouldn’t help with intercontinental travel, however.
I was the only hybrid speaker at a Mexico-based conference recently and felt I was missing out, but didn’t feel I could have justified that trip.

Overall, I think the default should be to avoid flying where there is an alternative, and that those funding travel should support more expensive alternatives where these are much lower-emission, and also fund offsetting of all flights. However, for now I clearly can’t rule out the occasional flight, given my recent decision to fly.

That flying is justified as necessary for career progression seems like a good example of how meritocratic competition harms everyone, including those who don’t/can’t even take part in the race.

You should not stop flying. Well, maybe stop flying for short trips that can be done by train. Flying is a low percentage of CO2 emissions, and may end up being one of the last sectors to decarbonise. When it does decarbonise, it may be as a form of energy storage: surplus renewables power used to make synthetic fuels.

You should use a position of influence to consistently promote all of the following:

(1) Decarbonised power generation;
(2) Decarbonisation of ground transportation;
(3) Low GHG agriculture;
(4) The construction of compact, walkable settlements and high performance, low embodied carbon buildings;
(5) The retrofit of low performance buildings;
(6) Reduction in car dependency.

None of this is all that much about lifestyle. Walkable settlements and less meat consumption, maybe.

Just to work through my thinking a bit more: it is very much along the lines of a benefits / harms calculus. Academics have large influence, and have leadership (albeit they specialise) in all of the areas in that list. So academic air travel is beneficial when it’s used to influence. The direct harm (CO2 flying emissions) is quite small.

There’s a second thought – I haven’t considered it deeply! – which is to do with moral example. The surrender of flying – if done by everyone – would be a pretty big harm. Our lives would go better if we retained the practice of flying (although we should also try to decarbonise it). So academics shouldn’t mis-use their influence (such as it is) by encouraging others not to fly through not flying themselves.

Thanks Ingrid. I feel strongly that we need to have this conversation, across our academic departments, and with those controlling our promotion and reward structures. And with our students? AHAH…but here’s another problem. I work in a small University in the UK with a high proportion of overseas students. A local expert has estimated that staff/postgrads make less than 20% of the flights associated with our University. The rest of the flying is done by students. Another twist to think about.

We MUST talk to our communities, we MUST make some changes. Considering covid as ‘practise’ for leaving a lighter footprint, I’m currently aiming at 1 flight per year for business purposes. But I have a permanent job, in an elite institution, and am in a fairly senior position. People like me have least to lose and should lead the way in making changes.

Our profession is based on knowledge and evidence. We understand the evidence. If not us, who? If not now, when?

I’m planning my first international flight since the onset of the pandemic. I’ll go to three conferences in Europe and work in person with a colleague. Given the time zone difference, the alternative is not to take part in the conferences at all (except maybe Zooming in for a presentation), and, with my colleague, to stick to alternating emails, and occasional zooms.

I generally refuse invitations to travel within Australia, partly for climate reasons, partly because I still attempt to minimise time spent indoors with lots of other people and partly because travel wastes a lot of time.

As others have said, it doesn’t make sense to focus exclusively on one source of emissions. The cost to me of foregoing this trip, per unit of emissions saved, is much higher than that of reducing my electricity consumption at home, or cutting down on driving.

Ultimately, as Peter Dorman says, we need collective action. But there is no harm in living the changes you want to see arising from that action. In all of this, I am acting as if we had a carbon price that effectively captured the cost of emissions. I can”t reduce emissions to zero, but I can make reductions in activities where costs exceed benefits.

My views here are similar to John Q’s, to a large degree, but I’d add (to some others above) that the situation for different people make the opportunity costs very different. For people in many parts of N. America or, even more, Europe, it’s not too hard to have an intellectual community that you can be in close contact with via ground transport, and even things like zoom are easier because of being in the same or close time zones. For others, this is less so. Australia, New Zealand, and some other places are extreme examples, but similar things will apply to people in, say, Manhattan Kansas or the like, where there is not a huge intellectual community close by or within driving distance.

Other factors are relevant, too. So, when I worked in Melbourne, there was a fairly good community for me there because of the fact that there were six or so univiersities in the city, and so a good number of people working on similar enough things. Where I live now (the Gold Coast), there is no philosophy department in the city, and one other law school and philosophy department about one hour away. At my own university I have only one colleague with semi-similar research interests. I’ve been happy to take part in events over zoom in Australia rather than fly down, especially when it’s a one day event but this would require at the minimum two days of travel, but this just isn’t plausible for a signficant conference outside of Australia. I don’t fly abroad often, not least because I don’t have the travel funds or time for it, but if I didn’t do it at all, it would be a much, much greater sacrifice for my career than for people in Europe or large parts of N. America. Given that, and that I can make contributions in other ways, to say simply “academics should not fly” seems clearly over-broad to me.

I think the question is framed poorly, because it’s (effectively) weighing the morality of flying versus the morality of the gained benefit from flying. The problem with this is that it’s fuzzy, and so we end up saying things like “I recycle my coffee cups, so flying is ok”

Instead, I’d suggest a per-capita carbon budget approach. I can’t find the reference now, but I think I saw that 2tCO2/person/year is an amount that is compatible with climate goals (eg. 2 degC). Importantly, this would include the embodied carbon in everything we buy (eg. solar panels, shoes, food, medical care, liquid fuel, books, etc). Then it becomes a trade off: “I’ll take a 5-hour each-way flight but it means I’ll buy no new clothes/shoes, and will cycle to work right through winter. I’ll also eat low-food-miles vegan, which means lots of turnip and potato in winter” (I’ve just made this up — I don’t know the equivalency off-hand — this is the sort of thing that a carbon tax helps with, but really we’re at the point where we need actual carbon rationing, at least in rich countries)

Well academics are people, and last time I checked you lived on the same planet that I do, and that planet and all of its life was staring down climate catastrophe … ????

People who are running online conferences and getting them setup as fixtures to look forward to in their disciplines are doing necessary work future proofing conferences. Another framing for the early phase of the pandemic is that it was the first major climate event that prevented travel: there will be many others in the coming years.

You will be prevented again from travelling freely, and I think you should act accordingly.

Because the academic job market is global, many academics live and work far away from their home countries. They often have no choice but to fly ion order to see their families. My spouse and I have flown regularly when living in North America. Now that we are back in Europe, heaven thanks, we are determined not to fly any more.

The good reasons for academics to fly in a professional capacity are not very good, imo

Great piece! I wondered if your comment ‘I am not just, because of my love for academic travelling, simply fooling myself?’ suggests that you perhaps already know what you should do.

I’d suggest that (2) is perhaps a little weak, as you could ask the conference organisers if you can give the keynote by video link – they may say no, but they will better appreciate the concerns and if enough people do this then may revise their future approach to conferences.

Perhaps a counter-argument to (10) is that as an academic you are a role model to a wide community (to students, peers, any colleagues outside academia, and the wider public) and if you choose not to fly then your actions can be amplified by people seeing the choices you make.

Gus @23 “Food miles” illustrate the complexities of the issue. As long as you stick to turnips and potatoes, you are probably reducing emissions relative to a more varied diet. But if you buy vegetables produced locally in heated greenhouses, you are almost certainly generating more emissions than if you buy them flown in from Spain or Morocco (though I understand this may no longer be an option for UK consumers).

Not flying professionally is contagious. I haven’t flown for work in more than two years, and more and more conference organizers are unsurprised, and are shifting what they do all day. Not just because I don’t fly, but because others are starting to stop as well.

The multiplier effect is real.

The IPCC says remarkably clearly that we have to cut emissions to zero wherever that’s possible. Not where it’s convenient, easy, cheap, popular or profitable, but wherever it’s possible.

Covid proved that we can survive much, much less flying than “normal”, but the IPCC has shown that we can’t survive “normal” levels. The “normal” trajectory is large parts of the tropics uninhabitable, sea level 10-50m higher than now, billions of deaths from climate catastrophe.

To me that’s the context for “just a few more flights, I’ll stop soon I promise”. If we were talking about serial killers, or even drunk drivers, I think very few of you would accept “I’ll try to cut back”. But because it’s statistical slaughter, mostly of the unborn, a lot of you say “balancing my personal benefit against costs faced by others is difficult”.

Given the scale of the personal change required I think not flying is a small, easy change to make. This isn’t “no more cars” let alone “stop eating meat”, or “no more single family homes”.

At a systematic level, compared to “all steel refining will use renewable energy and green hydrogen” the end of non-emergency flying is trivial. Transitioning to zero-emissions concrete while simultaneously rebuilding Rotterdam to cope with even a 10m sea level rise is going to be very difficult… can we try to do them one at a time? Please?

Seems like this is an attempt to conflate a moral argument with an economic problem.

Just because one university worth of academics isn’t flying – not a single scheduled jet doesn’t take off as planned. Even if every university did the same, the impact on the daily number of flights would be negligible because the seats not taken by academics would be sold instead to business or leisure travelers. Supply and demand isn’t repealed unless you can get demand to zero.

There is little that stops the jets from flying. Even if you tax the travel, those that can afford will still pay and air travel becomes even more a privilege of wealth than it already is. The simple fact is – flight is a tremendous value, far cheaper than any ground travel once the ground distance is much more than 3 or 4 hours. Few people fly completely frivolously – time, budget and need are routinely weighed and adding climate to checklist is adding little to the scale….maybe it should, but that the moral argument, not one based on utility.

There is high value in connecting people, cultures and ideas for a multitude of purposes – business, pleasure and academic. If you don’t want to fly that’s your choice – I’ll welcome the empty middle seat next to me.

I think a question has to be what happens if long distance flight has to go away completely? It’s not clear that zero-emission transoceanic flight will be technologically or economically feasible before zero-emission goals need to be met. If so, are you building institutions and systems that can survive a world where any long-distance travel takes much longer and is therefore much less common and more difficult to fit into the academic calendar?

Last week, I decided to add a little pump to a factory, for presumably good reasons. That pump will, indirectly, generate CO2 comparable to a transatlantic trip every week or so. I feel responsible to keep such emissions low, but I don’t ever consider them my personal emissions. I see them as embedded emissions of the end-consumer of our products.

The same when I fly for work – I see it as emissions in service of the work to be done. They must be justified by being helpful to that work, and by the work itself being valuable to people on the outside. From that perspective, the OP looks strangely personal. A lot of the points are written as if academics are the main beneficiary of conferences. It’s an inspiring or enjoyable activity, or for career progression.

Perhaps my perspective is skewed, a side effect of working in a heavily polluting industry. That might be a useful frame though, as we’re discussing pollution from the academic industry.

This isn’t, I don’t think, the right way to think about it: “To me that’s the context for “just a few more flights, I’ll stop soon I promise”. If we were talking about serial killers, or even drunk drivers, I think very few of you would accept “I’ll try to cut back”. But because it’s statistical slaughter, mostly of the unborn, a lot of you say “balancing my personal benefit against costs faced by others is difficult”.” By flying, you aren’t harming anyone, you’re merely increasing the risks that they will be harmed (by climate change, as it were). That’s different and different moral rules apply. Exactly what those rules are, is a tricky question (see the paper linked above in comment 20, for my view), but what isn’t tricky, I don’t think, is that we can’t move immediately from claims and conclusions about serial killers to claims and conclusions about flying.

Any small action, on the level of an individual or a single university, may be admirable in intent, but wouldn’t actually make any difference, I don’t think.

Do you feel the same way about donating money for famine relief, or not repeating widespread lies?

If Dr Evil personally dumped so much methane in the atmosphere that the temperature increased by X degrees and Y thousand people died in weather events that almost certainly would not have occurred otherwise then I think he’d be responsible for those deaths. I don’t see why that shouldn’t also be true at much smaller scales. Unless someone’s flying a private jet I suppose the share of excess deaths attributable to them will be less than one and I know there’sa lot of uncertainty involved but it still seems like a serious form of culpability to me. (Just thinking aloud here: I think there was someone upthread who said they’d thought about this more.)

1) At some price, jet fuel from non-fossil sources is possible. My guess is that the price is too high for casual intercontinental air travel for the masses, but not for professional academic travel.

2) I started doing research on multi-person multi-media real-time communications over IP protocols in 1993. I was particularly interested in the sorts of additional protocols necessary to come closer to reproducing assorted settings, with a academic conference one of the truly difficult ones. (Legal at the big US telecoms where I worked wouldn’t let me publish). Multicast was a necessity in most cases. My biggest regret in my technical career was I couldn’t convince those same telecoms to include multicast in their service offerings. A close second is that such communication isn’t a casual thing used easily by everybody today — it’s been 30 years after all.

Here’s a number: 0.000226 excess deaths this century per metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted beyond the current rate of emissions. London-NY return in economy is about a metric ton of CO2, so doing that every month for 5 years is 1% of a death.

Sorry I was writing loosely and interrupted before I looked at what I’d said. My assumption, which is probably wrong (but isn’t contradicted in engels’s link) is that each carbon emission depends on other carbon emissions for its negative effect. Whereas each donation has a positive effect independently of other donations. But I don’t understand the science and don’t claim to.

each carbon emission depends on other carbon emissions for its negative effect

That would also be true in the Dr Evil case.

Well personally I would feel guilty about bearing a 1% responsibility (it could easily be more) for someone’s death; you could compare that to a year of someone’s life.