TLDR: Researchers in one big university survey in UK tend to prefer taking air travel (mostly juniors) than taking train or other alternative methods. The article is discussing from European perceptive where there is actually other options.
I hope that no would think of similarity with the US because it lack sane alternatives. Driving for i.e two days wouldn't be less harm and wouldn't be possible because you will waste couple of days in traveling and will cost more of the limited money for travel in grants. And I really hope that one day the US will have a good train system.
I’m actually posting this with the ulterior motive of having someone respond with better carbon numbers for Amtrak, because I have not been able to find any.
It says 34% more energy efficient. But that's not as relevant as carbon emission efficiency. It's certainly more carbon emission efficient than that.
The page you linked says up to 73% less carbon emissions, but it's hard to know what that means. I don't believe they actually mean that an Amtrak train emits 27% of the emissions of the worst commerical air travel option in the US, that sounds too high.
From London St Pancras International, you're still looking at 8+ hours via train to Zurich, Munich, Berlin, Milan, Barcelona. Americans talk about Europe's rail network like it is a city metro or something. It is 100% unfeasible to do a business trip via train from Rome to Amsterdam, Madrid to Berlin, Vienna to Paris.
> TLDR: Researchers in one big university survey in UK tend to prefer taking air travel (mostly juniors) than taking train or other alternative methods
Perhaps they realized one fewer booking doesn't prevent the flight from happening - or change anything except inconvenience themselves?
Even if 100% of academics committed to taking the train or heck, walking to conferences, nothing is different other than a lot of wasted time. Time that might be spent much more productively doing something else.
The hypocrisy is the only real problem. But, we (both the US and UK) tolerate celebrities and politicians that fly on private jets to events just to scold us about the climate.
Arguing that travel you don't like is unnecessary because it harms the environment?
Yes, that is useless and lazy nihilism.
OP is arguing that observed preferences are far more reliable indicators of what people actually value than what people say to surveyors/the press/reddit/HN. That's not "nilhilism", it's just a fact. Presumably, academics travel to conferences because they're getting value out of it, and they deem that value worth whatever costs they believe it incurs.
I was in and among that set for the last 12 years. Plenty of people travel for fun because someone else is paying. Many conferences are nowhere near a central location and instead are in somewhere exotic because one of the organizers wanted it there. This never sat well with me, but is completely standard and almost never questioned.
This reminds a bit of the "it's useless to do anything here, China should cut their emissions, not us, we're a mere drop in the ocean!"
Which of course means that we can solve climate change by dividing the earth into smaller countries, all too small to have any positive effect by cleaning up their act :)
It's really unfortunate people cannot fathom how insignificant your butt in an airplane seat, that will take off with or without you, really is.
This climate change thing really has become people's new religion. Deny anything that doesn't align with the religion. Commit to meaningless gestures. Say your three hail marys. Who can suffer the most in the name of our lord? It makes you a better person, don't you know?
It's the sufficient collection of butts absent that gets the plane not to even be scheduled. Funny how the pandemic quieted things down. (Though perversely, airlines flew plenty of empty planes to keep their gates, just the way our economic incentives are structured.) So academics on their own, no, maybe just a couple of charter flights here and there. Broad-based reduction would be required, for example reducing the sizes of the planes on some routes.
These aspects are more meaningless because of the way other humans behave, but it's all a question of degree. It's insignificant whether you urinate into someone's locker at the gym, so we can all do that every day, right?
Thanks for the reality check, buddy. You're right that nothing any of us does ever really matters in the grand scheme of things. There is no way we could ever try to get others to change their behavior by first changing our own. Collective action has never, ever worked.
I'd been keeping my used batteries and motor oil for a special trip to the recycling center, but I just threw them in the river behind my house, because it turns out nothing we do matters because climate change actually can't be fixed unless we fix corrupt multinational corporations or governments or China, or maybe climate change is all a hoax, or whatever lets you sleep at night and feel morally superior to all the other sheep. Thanks for the inspiration, friend.
No, they said that one fewer butt in one particular seat won't make a difference. That's true about everything any one particular individual can do about climate change. You could commit euthanasia and never be responsible for another gram of carbon emitted, and that would not have a measurable effect on CO2 levels.
OP is trying to force a very narrow utilitarian framework in which actions are evaluated based only on their immediate consequences. By that logic, nothing any ordinary, median individual does will directly have a measurable impact on climate change.
The fallacy is that these kinds of boycotts and self-restrictions, which are part of the "religion" OP is objecting to in other replies, is the way to get large numbers of individuals to change their behavior collectively in ways that do measurably impact the bottom line. If demand for air travel drops, fewer planes will burn carbon.
The other fallacy is that utilitarianism is only one way of considering how to act ethically in the world.
So if the UK banned all airplanes - what changes for the world?
Oh, that's right. Still nothing.
You are hyper-focused on a meaningless gesture that you were told to believe by people who continue to fly private jets around the world - like the academics this very thread is about. Seriously... let that sink in for a few moments. You should suffer, while they enjoy the lavishes of life. Kind of like a tv megachurch evangelist.
If you want to be principled and refuse to ever fly again - fine. It doesn't harm anyone but yourself. The world won't even thank you for this meaningless gesture and countless wasted hours. Just don't stand on a busy street corner shouting "repent" into your megaphone.
I'm pretty sure the UK banning all airplanes would make a measurable difference. Especially since other countries would be reducing air travel along with them if this scenario is supposed to be at least semi-plausible.
Unless the UK is going to totally isolate themselves from the entire world - people and goods will still travel in and out. Only by vastly less efficient means.
The UK is not isolated, and will never be. In this implausible scenario, people fly into France, drive to a ferry, cross the channel by boat, drive to the train station, etc. Increased traffic, idling, etc all adds up.
People still have business that needs to be done and they will do it. Evidenced by this hypocritical academics.
Yes they are. Look at these fuel economy numbers (broken down by number of butts in seats)[1]. 60-100+ mpg equivalent per seat. What car or truck is getting 80+mpg while hauling a 40,000lbs payload, for example? Not to mention how wildly efficient modern turbofan combustion is.
This fiction that air travel is so awful is really counter productive.
It wouldn't disappear. Lots of Brits went to Brighton long before cheap flights to Bali. If you have 12 hours to travel, then you have 12 hours to travel, no matter the method.
I said levels. You're not looking at data on levels (measured empirically using simple physics), but emissions, which is a smorgasbord of combined government data sources that aren't very likely to be complete.
If you check levels, you'll see no impact. Therefore we must conclude that either:
1. Emissions do not affect measured levels (carbon cycles are complex so this is possible).
2. Emissions data is wrong.
3. The tiny reduction in emissions was just too small to actually show up in measurements.
The noise levels on direct measurements are pretty high. You're right that it's not big enough to show up on a year to year basis, but it will likely make a difference up on a longer term analysis, which can see more impact and has less variance. In that case it depends on whether "observable" is supposed to include near-future measurements or not.
You're right that no one (essentially) will thank you for this. Everyone is too caught up in their own worlds. So eat the last tuna, hunt the last buffalo, shred your polyester clothes into the wind via your clother dryer, no one cares enough.
This is where religion might have played a role in saying "God cares" but gods sort of stopped talking over a thousand years ago.
We have mechanisms for solving collective action problems. If air travel is bad and we want people to take trains, just tax airplanes and subsidize high speed rail.
I don't know how you expect people to pay twice the price and take twice the time to travel somewhere.
Do you vote in elections? You must realize it's a waste of time, at least outside local elections. It's very unlikely that your vote will affect the outcome of any election in your lifetime. And it's even more unlikely that the effect will actually matter.
It's good to realize that you are almost certainly a nobody. Your life will probably have no measurable effect on the world. And that's good, because the world would be a terrible place if many people could change it individually. But when a million nobodies make a choice, the world may change.
You should act in ways that would be good for the society if everyone did the same. That's a pretty universal idea in moral philosophy. You can find it in most philosophical traditions and most religions. Utilitarianism fails on a large scale, because individual choices have a major effect on the individual but a negligible effect on the society. But if everyone makes choices that are individually good, everyone may come off worse. Civilized societies depend on people occasionally choosing the right thing over the thing that benefits them.
To be a human, you need moral agency. It's not enough to be a utilitarian automaton reacting to incentives.
Yes, when I was in academic neuroscience as of last year this was 100% true, through truthfully a disappointingly small number even thought about it. It’s seen as necessary for career advancement and that is true. Remote conferences eliminate the most important part of networking
We tried various forms of this during the pandemic; systems like gather.town and so on. They were universally awful. I think travel is simply the price of good Science.
How important is this, though? Apparently though it's a growing contributor, air travel contributes roughly 2.5% of overall emissions. Even for academics who "need" to attend conferences in person, how many conferences does the average academic fly to per year?
I tried one of those online carbon calculators which spat out 1.4 tons CO2 for a round trip west coast to east coast trip (SF / NYC). The average American emissions are at like 10x that, so while it's significant, depending on how many long-haul flights you have per year, it may still matter less than your day-to-day transportation, what you eat, heating your home, etc.
Regardless of how much impact it has, it makes them look like hypocrites. If climate change is truly an issue that threatens millions of lives then maybe don't contribute to it unless you absolutely have to.
> then maybe don't contribute to it unless you absolutely have to.
We don't "absolutely have to" do anything. Our comments contributed to climate change, but we did it anyway. Living contributes to climate change, but we don't stop. All of us are choosing some acceptable threshold for our lives.
Don't you find it interesting that when looking up the overall CO2 emissions of flying you found the number 2.5%, barely relevant, but when you looked up the emissions from a single long haul flight that ended up being ~10% of the average American emissions (already much larger than the global average).
How can those two numbers be combined? Most of the worlds population never fly, and that's why it's a relatively small fraction of global emissions. But it's still a very sizeable portion of the emissions of people who do fly, and that makes it relevant.
It's the same as saying: is it really important that people in Belgium cause large CO2 emissions? It's such a small country, barely 1 % of global emissions, there's no point to them reducing their emissions. But that's a fallacy (obviously). All emissions can be decomposed into small sets and dismissed as irrelevant.
The important question is: how much benefit does these emissions cause compared to alternatives? And, would these emissions fit in the global co2 budget?
You're arguing against a straw man. No one is claiming that the emissions from academics flying doesn't contribute to total emissions or that there's "no point" in reducing them. That's just silly.
But is it academics flying to conferences important? And is viewing academics as being somehow "accountable" for work-related emissions useful?
Certainly a minority of people on the planet fly. But the people that fly regularly also are likely to live in a way that overall uses more carbon -- eating more meat, owning/driving personal vehicles, using AC more etc. Even for them, even if you believe that professional travel is the responsibility of the individual, perhaps their biggest opportunity to reduce is by a change of diet, or something else. Again, it would help to have figures on how many conference-flights per year the average academic is doing.
Is it important to the rest of us? From quick searches, it sounds like ~12% of air passengers are on business travel, so talking about personal and tourist travel seems close to an order of magnitude bigger opportunity than reducing work travel. And even then, of work travel, how much is from conferences vs e.g. sales people and consultants going to meet with customers?
Is the implied alternative to traveling to conferences doing everything online? Then how does stopping conference travel compare in emissions to doing all instruction online and dropping the commutes of university faculty on a day-to-day basis?
This article seems more like a "gotcha" than a valuable insight. A lot of people think emissions need to come down sharply, but we're all stuck in systems that make this quite difficult. Academics are not special in this regard, and I am not convinced that conference travel is even the most important source for that small group.
The old "if you live in society you can't try to improve it without being a hypocrite" argument.
"We Should Improve Society Somewhat refers to a panel from a comic by Matt Bors in which a medieval peasant says "We should improve society somewhat" while a modern man, emerging from a well, replies, "Yet you participate in society! Curious! I am very intelligent." "
About the same as four people in the average American car (25mpg at four people is 100mpg per seat). Compared to say, your average truck driver (like, 10? 15?), it's absolutely spectacular.
A good European train can technically do 400-500mpg per seat, so 4-5x, but load factors tend to be much lower, I believe around 80-85% for planes vs 40-50% for intercity trains.
Given that then, in the real world conventional trains are about 2-3x more efficient than planes. High speed trains lose a significant amount of that advantage - can't beat physics (air resistance).
At the end of the day, long distance travel is simply expensive however you cut the cookie. There's nothing particularly special about air travel.
This has always been the entire problem with climate change action. We don't accept any reduction in our quality of life whatsoever for the purpose of saving our habitat. Too many of us always expecting someone else to make the change. Those that should be role models undermine their own message and thus many people around the world don't take their science seriously because they don't seem to take it seriously themselves.
Since governments are paid extensively by all the CO2 producers who have made it all about personal choice rather than government intervening in industry to fix their direct production of CO2. The outcome of this crisis are now a foregone conclusion, 1.5C is done and onwards to 2C. We are now choosing what type of dystopia we want and the one we are choosing still tracks towards 6C and its a bad choice.
I'm an academic and try pretty hard to take the train. Just got back from a 19-hours-each way Greyhound+train+Greyhound ordeal to give a couple talks. My destination was only two not-that-big states away.
They don't make it easy. Last year I had a reimbursement rejected because I took a two-night train option instead of flying -- the finance office considered this a vacation. Any time you do anything other than fly you need to provide comparison data showing that flying would've cost more. But those who fly even when the train is reasonable (for a normal person) face no such requirement.
With nearly all climate stuff one person changing won't make much difference which is why we need incentives for everyone to change. Or better tech - on current trends of falling solar cost we may be able to make green fuel from that in a decade or two.
60 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 124 ms ] threadI hope that no would think of similarity with the US because it lack sane alternatives. Driving for i.e two days wouldn't be less harm and wouldn't be possible because you will waste couple of days in traveling and will cost more of the limited money for travel in grants. And I really hope that one day the US will have a good train system.
If I’m going to take days instead of hours, I want better than 34% more efficient.
https://www.amtrak.com/travel-green
I’m actually posting this with the ulterior motive of having someone respond with better carbon numbers for Amtrak, because I have not been able to find any.
The page you linked says up to 73% less carbon emissions, but it's hard to know what that means. I don't believe they actually mean that an Amtrak train emits 27% of the emissions of the worst commerical air travel option in the US, that sounds too high.
https://www.chronotrains.com/en/station/2643743-London/8
Perhaps they realized one fewer booking doesn't prevent the flight from happening - or change anything except inconvenience themselves?
Even if 100% of academics committed to taking the train or heck, walking to conferences, nothing is different other than a lot of wasted time. Time that might be spent much more productively doing something else.
The hypocrisy is the only real problem. But, we (both the US and UK) tolerate celebrities and politicians that fly on private jets to events just to scold us about the climate.
Ah, the good old "collective action by individuals is useless because individual action by individuals is useless" canard.
The "do something, anything!" crowd needs reality checks from time to time. Consider yourself checked...
Yes, that is useless and lazy nihilism.
OP is arguing that observed preferences are far more reliable indicators of what people actually value than what people say to surveyors/the press/reddit/HN. That's not "nilhilism", it's just a fact. Presumably, academics travel to conferences because they're getting value out of it, and they deem that value worth whatever costs they believe it incurs.
Which of course means that we can solve climate change by dividing the earth into smaller countries, all too small to have any positive effect by cleaning up their act :)
This climate change thing really has become people's new religion. Deny anything that doesn't align with the religion. Commit to meaningless gestures. Say your three hail marys. Who can suffer the most in the name of our lord? It makes you a better person, don't you know?
These aspects are more meaningless because of the way other humans behave, but it's all a question of degree. It's insignificant whether you urinate into someone's locker at the gym, so we can all do that every day, right?
I'd been keeping my used batteries and motor oil for a special trip to the recycling center, but I just threw them in the river behind my house, because it turns out nothing we do matters because climate change actually can't be fixed unless we fix corrupt multinational corporations or governments or China, or maybe climate change is all a hoax, or whatever lets you sleep at night and feel morally superior to all the other sheep. Thanks for the inspiration, friend.
This is a gross misreading of what they said. They said that one particular collective isn't big enough.
OP is trying to force a very narrow utilitarian framework in which actions are evaluated based only on their immediate consequences. By that logic, nothing any ordinary, median individual does will directly have a measurable impact on climate change.
The fallacy is that these kinds of boycotts and self-restrictions, which are part of the "religion" OP is objecting to in other replies, is the way to get large numbers of individuals to change their behavior collectively in ways that do measurably impact the bottom line. If demand for air travel drops, fewer planes will burn carbon.
The other fallacy is that utilitarianism is only one way of considering how to act ethically in the world.
Oh, that's right. Still nothing.
You are hyper-focused on a meaningless gesture that you were told to believe by people who continue to fly private jets around the world - like the academics this very thread is about. Seriously... let that sink in for a few moments. You should suffer, while they enjoy the lavishes of life. Kind of like a tv megachurch evangelist.
If you want to be principled and refuse to ever fly again - fine. It doesn't harm anyone but yourself. The world won't even thank you for this meaningless gesture and countless wasted hours. Just don't stand on a busy street corner shouting "repent" into your megaphone.
Also what's "far less efficient means", please be specific. Most of these people are not going to take solo car trips super long distances.
The UK is not isolated, and will never be. In this implausible scenario, people fly into France, drive to a ferry, cross the channel by boat, drive to the train station, etc. Increased traffic, idling, etc all adds up.
People still have business that needs to be done and they will do it. Evidenced by this hypocritical academics.
And when travel is harder, people travel less.
This fiction that air travel is so awful is really counter productive.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft
I see a pretty significant dip on this chart, at least.
If you check levels, you'll see no impact. Therefore we must conclude that either:
1. Emissions do not affect measured levels (carbon cycles are complex so this is possible).
2. Emissions data is wrong.
3. The tiny reduction in emissions was just too small to actually show up in measurements.
You're the one who seems hyperfocused on this. You come off like an evangelical atheist.
> Just don't stand on a busy street corner shouting "repent" into your megaphone.
Sir, this is an article about a survey.
I don't know how you expect people to pay twice the price and take twice the time to travel somewhere.
Prices are information. Tax externalities.
It's good to realize that you are almost certainly a nobody. Your life will probably have no measurable effect on the world. And that's good, because the world would be a terrible place if many people could change it individually. But when a million nobodies make a choice, the world may change.
You should act in ways that would be good for the society if everyone did the same. That's a pretty universal idea in moral philosophy. You can find it in most philosophical traditions and most religions. Utilitarianism fails on a large scale, because individual choices have a major effect on the individual but a negligible effect on the society. But if everyone makes choices that are individually good, everyone may come off worse. Civilized societies depend on people occasionally choosing the right thing over the thing that benefits them.
To be a human, you need moral agency. It's not enough to be a utilitarian automaton reacting to incentives.
For instance, a feature where you queue up for 30-60 second 1:1s with the speaker after a talk would be cool.
And then basically chat roulette for the hallway sessions. Would be cool.
I tried one of those online carbon calculators which spat out 1.4 tons CO2 for a round trip west coast to east coast trip (SF / NYC). The average American emissions are at like 10x that, so while it's significant, depending on how many long-haul flights you have per year, it may still matter less than your day-to-day transportation, what you eat, heating your home, etc.
We don't "absolutely have to" do anything. Our comments contributed to climate change, but we did it anyway. Living contributes to climate change, but we don't stop. All of us are choosing some acceptable threshold for our lives.
How can those two numbers be combined? Most of the worlds population never fly, and that's why it's a relatively small fraction of global emissions. But it's still a very sizeable portion of the emissions of people who do fly, and that makes it relevant.
It's the same as saying: is it really important that people in Belgium cause large CO2 emissions? It's such a small country, barely 1 % of global emissions, there's no point to them reducing their emissions. But that's a fallacy (obviously). All emissions can be decomposed into small sets and dismissed as irrelevant.
The important question is: how much benefit does these emissions cause compared to alternatives? And, would these emissions fit in the global co2 budget?
But is it academics flying to conferences important? And is viewing academics as being somehow "accountable" for work-related emissions useful?
Certainly a minority of people on the planet fly. But the people that fly regularly also are likely to live in a way that overall uses more carbon -- eating more meat, owning/driving personal vehicles, using AC more etc. Even for them, even if you believe that professional travel is the responsibility of the individual, perhaps their biggest opportunity to reduce is by a change of diet, or something else. Again, it would help to have figures on how many conference-flights per year the average academic is doing.
Is it important to the rest of us? From quick searches, it sounds like ~12% of air passengers are on business travel, so talking about personal and tourist travel seems close to an order of magnitude bigger opportunity than reducing work travel. And even then, of work travel, how much is from conferences vs e.g. sales people and consultants going to meet with customers?
Is the implied alternative to traveling to conferences doing everything online? Then how does stopping conference travel compare in emissions to doing all instruction online and dropping the commutes of university faculty on a day-to-day basis?
This article seems more like a "gotcha" than a valuable insight. A lot of people think emissions need to come down sharply, but we're all stuck in systems that make this quite difficult. Academics are not special in this regard, and I am not convinced that conference travel is even the most important source for that small group.
"We Should Improve Society Somewhat refers to a panel from a comic by Matt Bors in which a medieval peasant says "We should improve society somewhat" while a modern man, emerging from a well, replies, "Yet you participate in society! Curious! I am very intelligent." "
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som...
Modern airliners approach 100mpg per seat.
About the same as four people in the average American car (25mpg at four people is 100mpg per seat). Compared to say, your average truck driver (like, 10? 15?), it's absolutely spectacular.
A good European train can technically do 400-500mpg per seat, so 4-5x, but load factors tend to be much lower, I believe around 80-85% for planes vs 40-50% for intercity trains.
Given that then, in the real world conventional trains are about 2-3x more efficient than planes. High speed trains lose a significant amount of that advantage - can't beat physics (air resistance).
At the end of the day, long distance travel is simply expensive however you cut the cookie. There's nothing particularly special about air travel.
Since governments are paid extensively by all the CO2 producers who have made it all about personal choice rather than government intervening in industry to fix their direct production of CO2. The outcome of this crisis are now a foregone conclusion, 1.5C is done and onwards to 2C. We are now choosing what type of dystopia we want and the one we are choosing still tracks towards 6C and its a bad choice.
They don't make it easy. Last year I had a reimbursement rejected because I took a two-night train option instead of flying -- the finance office considered this a vacation. Any time you do anything other than fly you need to provide comparison data showing that flying would've cost more. But those who fly even when the train is reasonable (for a normal person) face no such requirement.