Alternative futures for academic conferences: a response to Bonnett

Area

(2007) 39.1, 125–129

ISSN 0004-0894 © The Author.Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Commentary

Alternative futures for academic conferences: a response to Bonnett

Edward Hall

Geography, School of Social Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN

Email: [email protected]

Revised manuscript received 23 January 2007

Introduction

In the context of the recently published Stern report(2006) and other studies setting out scenarios ofclimate change and necessary social and economicchanges to lessen its impacts (IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change 2001; Monbiot 2006;Schellnhuber

et al.

2006), this Commentary seeksto stimulate debate within the RGS-IBG on thesustainability of the Annual Conference and othermeetings and activities of the Society. Indeed, thisdebate has already begun. In

Area

’s September 2006Editorial, Alastair Bonnett questions the sustainabilityof attendance at national and international conferencesand meetings, especially when travelling by air(Bonnett 2006). He sets out the stark facts of theenvironmental impact of air travel – it is the fastestgrowing contributor to carbon emissions, withpassenger numbers and airport capacity set toexpand rapidly, and CO

2

has enhanced warmingeffects when emitted at high altitudes – but theeditorial ends with an unexplored plea for a ‘shift inculture’ (2006, 230) in academic research practices.This commentary agrees that there is a need for achange in our culture and practice of knowledgegeneration and dissemination to reduce the veryreal (and increasing) damage that our travel andconferences generate. Furthermore, it attempts to gobeyond the rhetoric of change by setting out somealternative futures for the Annual Conference.

Before being accused of seizing the green moralhigh ground, I am as deeply steeped in the prevail-ing culture as any academic. Indeed, as my careerhas developed, I have found myself attending more

conferences and travelling further. In July 2006, Iattended a conference in Auckland, New Zealand(linked to the International Geographical Congressin Brisbane) and, in August, the RGS-IBG AnnualConference in London. Sitting in a seminar room atthe Society on an intensely hot day, as overheadplanes descended into Heathrow Airport, I began tothink about the carbon emissions of this and theother conferences I attend. This Commentary is myattempt to understand this and, further, to think abouthow I can continue as an engaged critical geographerwithout contributing to long-term environmental andsocietal damage.

1

Geography as a discipline has a rich knowledgeand insight into human-induced climate change,and arguably therefore an enhanced responsibilityto take a lead in questioning our and others’ practicesand policies. Put another way, while I recognize themultitude of academic (and business) conferencesthat happen every year, this cannot be an excuse forgeographical inaction (in the same way as usingChina’s rising carbon contribution as a justificationto delay Western reductions). Further, there is anincreasing recognition within critical geography ofthe need to address our own position and activitieswithin an increasingly neo-liberalized higher education‘economy’, in this instance the emphasis on inter-nationality and regular and rapid travel (Chattertonand Featherstone in press). More positively, this canbe seen as an opportunity to illustrate geography’scentral importance in understanding and providingimaginative and critical responses to contemporarysocial and environmental problems, at a time whenthe subject’s position in education and the public

126

Commentary


imagination is under threat (see ‘Give Geography itsPlace’ campaign, http://www.passion4geography.co.uk).

All elements of geographical enquiry, from field-work to publishing, generate carbon emissions. How-ever, this Commentary will focus on conferencesand, in particular, the Annual Conference of theRGS-IBG as: (i) this is a large collective productionof carbon and conversely where changes could bemost effective; (ii) the Annual Conference is wheremost UK and other geographers meet (approximately1432 delegates in 2006); and (iii) the RGS-IBG isthe ‘home’ of UK geography and as such is a goodplace to begin our culture shift. As an illustration ofthe scale of the issue, I have undertaken a calcula-tion of the CO

2

emissions associated with travel ofparticipants to the most recent RGS-IBG AnnualConference (2006); the emissions of the conferenceitself – power, lighting and consumables – have notbeen included.

Methodology

The emissions of all delegates attending the 2006Annual Conference were calculated using a formuladeveloped by the Tyndall Centre for ClimateChange Research (2006), which provides figures foramounts of CO

2

produced per mile for differentforms of transport.

2

In the calculation (summarizedin Table 1), the following assumptions were made:(i) all those travelling from outside Britain did so byair; (ii) those travelling from within England (Londonparticipants (233) have been exempted in thisinstance) and Wales did so by train, and those fromScotland did so in a mix of two-thirds by air andone-third by train (based on anecdotal evidence);(iii) all journeys were return; (iv) only those delegatesnamed in the conference programme were included,and those with no affiliation (or who were impossibleto locate) were excluded. Whilst these assumptions

mask possible variations in travelling behaviour, forinstance some delegates from the same UKinstitution travelling together by car, the calculationis comprehensive and the results robust.

While the figure of over 2.5 million miles travelledby delegates attending the conference is startling,what is more significant is the 87.3 per cent contri-bution of long-haul air travel to the total conferencetravel emissions. If short-haul flights (from outsideBritain) are included, then the contribution increasesto 95.3 per cent. The internationality of the RGS-IBG Annual Conference is seemingly central to itsstanding and significance, but the environmentalimpact of 772.5 metric tons of CO

2

from air travel issubstantial, and the conference could massivelyreduce its emissions by reconsidering the attend-ance of international delegates (see below).

3

Thesignificance of the Conference’s emissions can alsobe presented as individual travel CO

2

emissions,and compared to current country per capita CO

2

emissions (United Nations 2006)

4

and per capitalevels if emissions were reduced by 60 per cent, alevel the UK government considers will potentiallystabilize climate change.

5

Table 2 shows these figuresfor a sample of delegates travelling from locations ata range of distances from London. The table alsoshows, in the final column, the proportion of annualper capita CO

2

emissions (for the delegate’s country)that travelling to the conference totals, if a 60 percent cut was in place.

Clearly, the further the distance, the greater theproportion of annual per capita emissions isaccounted for by the air travel. So, for a delegatefrom Wellington, New Zealand, the return journeyto the Annual Conference, at present levels, almostmatches total per capita emissions; if a 60 per centreduction in New Zealand’s per capita emissionswas to be made, then the journey would be 227 percent of the total, potentially deeming the journey

Table 1 Travel distance and CO2 emissions of delegates

Origin of delegates (number) Miles travelled CO2 emissions (metric tons) CO2 emissions of total (%)

International ‘long haul’ (183) 2 080 500 707.4 87.3International ‘short haul’ (174) 191 472 65.1 8.0England and Wales (660) 199 722 23.2 2.8Scotland (78) 58 192 14.6 1.8Total 2 529 886 810.3 100

Note: International ‘long haul’ refers to delegates travelling (by air) from outside Europe; International ‘short haul’ refers to delegates travelling (by air) from within Europe (excluding Britain).

Commentary

127


unsustainable. For delegates travelling from Canadaand the USA, the proportions of reduced per capitaemissions of 43.2 and 29.4 per cent, respectively,also begin to question the sustainability and validityof such travel. At the very least these figures suggestsome form of rationing of international conferenceattendance is necessary. Even for those in NorthernEurope, where the travel emissions are far lower,attending the Annual Conference still accounts forbetween 6 and 8 per cent of total per capita emissions.The figure for the delegate from Nairobi demandsspecial attention – Kenya’s per capita CO

2

emissionsare far lower than those of the developed countriesincluded and, as such, travel to the conference farexceeds this, at 2890 per cent after the 60 per centreduction. The lower starting level of carbon emissionsclearly places delegates from Kenya, and other lessdeveloped countries, in a disadvantaged position(aside from the cost of the travel). There is anargument that under a process of ‘contraction andconvergence’ (Meyer 2005), whilst global carbonemissions need to be evenly cut by, say, 60 percent, the manner and geography of their reductionshould reflect current emissions, demanding greaterand faster reductions in developed (where levels arehighest) than in less developed countries (wherelevels remain low). As such, delegates from countrieswith low per capita emissions arguably have a greaterclaim on the possibilities afforded by internationalair travel and conference attendance (see below).

Whilst the above calculations are based on certainassumptions, the intention is to illustrate the extentof the carbon impact that travel to a single con-ference generates, and to generate too a debatewithin geography as to how we respond. Further, I

am fully aware of the uncertainty (and media hype)over the scenarios of future climate change, but thisis no excuse for inaction, firstly, because there isnow scientific consensus that change is occurring(Stern 2006) and, secondly, because it is now be-coming clear that the poorest in the world are alreadyexperiencing the devastating effects of climateinstability (

Observer

2006).Bonnett (2006, 230) notes that ‘we value and need

our conferences’ and that they are ‘a necessity, anexpectation’ of academic life. While I concur thatconferences provide unique opportunities to dissem-inate research findings and ‘network’ with academicpeers, there is the need to distinguish between the‘necessity’ and the ‘expectation’ of attendance. Wehave to rethink – ‘shift our culture’ in Bonnett’s words(230) – the reasons for travelling to conferences,the benefits gained and the resources used (havethey become, in many instances, little more than‘academic tourism’?).

Our conferences will continue, and have to if ourdiscipline is to flourish and contribute, but theyneed to be conceived of and organized in a radicallydifferent way. Below I set out a number of optionsfor the future of conferences, again using the RGS-IBG Annual Conference as an example.

Alternative futures

Option 1: A ‘carbon neutral’ conference

The first option envisages the conference continuingas now, but with a charge made (say, added to theconference fee) to pay for the ‘carbon offsetting’ ofthe conference itself, and the travel of participants.Bonnett suggests offsetting as a possible contribution

Table 2 Individual travel CO2 emissions of selected delegates

Origin of delegate CO2 travel emissions

Country CO2 per capita (metric tons, 2003)

CO2 per capita (metric tons, 60% cut)

Proportion ofCO2 used (%)

Wellington 7.95 8.8 3.5 227.1Vancouver 3.20 18.5 7.4 43.2Nairobi 2.89 0.26 0.1 2890.0New York 2.33 19.8 7.9 29.4Athens 1.02 8.7 3.4 30.0Hamburg 0.31 9.7 3.8 8.1Edinburgh (air) 0.22 9.43 3.7 5.9Manchester 0.04 9.43 3.7 1.0

Note: ‘Proportion of CO2 used’ refers to the CO2 emitted travelling to the conference as a percentage of the per capita CO2 for the delegate’s country of origin, assuming a 60 per cent reduction in per capita emissions.

128

Commentary


to dealing with the environmental impacts of con-ferences, arguing that it is ‘a necessary aspect ofgreen conferencing’ (2006, 230). Carbon offsetting‘works’ through using payments to, commonly,plant trees and provide low-carbon technologies indeveloping countries which ‘equal’ the carbonemissions generated by activities in the developedworld. Arguably, not only is such offsetting anineffective (Lohmann 2005) and even environment-ally damaging way of reducing carbon emissions,

6

but it could also generate complacency amongstconference delegates in its seeming ‘answer’ to theemissions problem. Offsetting is not to be rejectedout of hand as a contributor to the sustainability ofconferences (likewise the RGS-IBG would do wellto adopt the recommendations of the ‘GreenMeeting Guide’, noted by Bonnett 2006, 230) – itcould, for example, make delegates aware of theirconference-associated emissions – but as it does not

reduce

emissions it is in no way a solution.

Option 2: Fewer conferences

In this scenario, the conference continues in formatas now, but happens less often, say every two orfour years. This would reduce the associated carbonemissions and, further, could ‘shift the culture’ ofconferences from one of ‘expectation’ (Bonnett2006) to one of ‘value’. The annual conferencewould increase in importance, perhaps attractingmore delegates and publicity as it became an‘event’; it could be held over more days and bedifferently formatted, perhaps with more specificthemes. In short, knowing that a conference wasonly every second or fourth year could improve itsstatus amongst academics and the public. It can, ofcourse, be argued that geographers will simplyattend alternative (international) conferences, somaintaining (or even increasing) their emissions. Itis clear a cross-sector rethinking of the role andformat of conferences is needed (see below).

Option 3: Rethinking the international

The third option sees the format of the conferencechanged, with attendance of international delegates(who contribute 95.3 per cent of travel emissions)restricted. There are three issues here. Firstly,technology could be used more effectively toinvolve international academics in the conference,principally via video-conferencing. While out-of-session networking would be absent or at leastdifferent, significant carbon emissions reductionswould be made without arguably reducing academic

contribution and discussion, if sessions were organizedimaginatively. Secondly, as Table 2 suggests, dele-gates from less developed countries are arguablymore entitled to travel (and emit CO

2

) than thosefrom North America, Europe and Australasia, such isthe disparity in per capita emissions. The inter-nationality of the conference could be transformedif the current number of delegates from less deve-loped countries (approximately 14) was increasedand those attending from more developed countries(more than) proportionately reduced.

7

Thirdly, theinternationality of academic conferences, includingthe Annual Conference, is arguably privilegedabove the national and the local, with an addedpremium placed on attending an overseas event (orhaving international delegates attend). ResearchCouncils and other funding bodies are partly respon-sible, in their expectations of research outputs anddissemination.

I am not arguing for a closing down of inter-national dialogue, rather a rethinking of the role ofinternationality in our research dissemination. If weare to continue attending international conferences,then we must ration our attendance (see Table 2),and when we do travel make it count, replacing theperverse irony of the placelessness of many inter-national conferences with engagement with theissues and events in the locality (such activities havetaken place at some past AAG conferences). Apossible future for the Annual Conference would bea return to ‘regional’ UK locations, but with localorganizations and groups involved in the planningand activities of the conference, to connect theglobal and the local, the academic and the material.We are geographers after all.

Option 4: Other ways of disseminating research

While I am not proposing the cancellation of theAnnual Conference (although its content, purposeand impact need to be better justified and articu-lated), we should not rely so heavily on it as a formand moment of dissemination. If it was reduced infrequency to every two or four years and internationalcontributions were rethought (as suggested above),then this would force the devising of other methodsof disseminating our research and networking withcolleagues. This is, of course, already happening inmany areas of geography, with increased use ofemail discussion groups and web-based reports andpublications. More extensive use of technology ispossible, however, and together such developmentscould reposition face-to-face conferencing as just

Commentary

129


one form of dissemination. Further, as suggestedabove, shouldn’t we be disseminating locally andnationally before the rush to the international?Research councils also have a role here, in recognizingand encouraging alternative forms of dissemination,and not privileging the (international) conference.

Conclusion

These four options are clearly not mutually exclusive;indeed an imaginative combination of some elementsof each would make a significant contribution towardsreducing the carbon emissions of the Annual Con-ference (and other RGS-IBG meetings and events).Further, it would raise awareness amongst geo-graphers, the wider academic community and thepublic, of the environmental impact of conferencesand geography’s lead in devising alternative futures.As Bonnett (2006) notes, the responsibility forreformulating the Annual Conference is not for theRGS-IBG Council and committees alone (althoughthey should open and lead the debate); the researchgroups within the Society, research councils andother funders, universities and ourselves as individualacademics (with research funds to spend), must allengage in this debate and ultimately in a change inour research practice.

As I search online for ferry and train tickets to aconference in Bonn, I discover the market inequali-ties that encourage high carbon emitting forms oftravel, and contemplate how far there is to go inshifting our conference culture towards sustainability.The theme of the RGS-IBG Annual Conference 2007is ‘Sustainability and Quality of Life’ – the debateneeds to begin in earnest, and perhaps this is theideal place to start.

Notes

1 As a health geographer, I am aware of the already presenthealth and disease impacts of climate change (McMichael

et al.

2003).2 The Tyndall Centre formula for carbon emissions was

developed to measure the impact of the Centre’s activities.The formula is based on data from a selection of sources,including Forum for the Future, Department for Trans

-

port, Local Government and the Regions and http://www.chooseclimate.org. The emission rates by transport typeare approximate and do not take into account number

of passengers or efficiency of the vehicle. Alternative‘carbon calculators’ will probably produce slightly dif-ferent figures.

3 If delegates travelling by air from Scotland and other partsof the UK switched to train travel, emissions could befurther reduced.

4 The figures are for the country of origin of the delegate, andinclude all carbon emissions, i.e. other travel, energy,business and so on.

5 The 60 per cent figure is disputed; many scientists andorganizations consider that a much larger cut, of 80 or90 per cent, is required (Monbiot 2006).

6 There is evidence of tree planting schemes replacing existingagriculture and interfering with local ecological systems(Monbiot 2006).

7 Delegate numbers from selected developed countries/regions: USA – 66; Canada – 32; Australia – 22; New Zealand– 14; Europe (excluding UK) – 157.

References

Bonnett

A

2006 The need for sustainable conferences

Area

38 229–30

Chatterton

P and Featherstone

D

in press Intervention: Elsevier,critical geography and the arms trade

Political Geography

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

2001

Climatechange 2001: synthesis report of the IPCC Third Assess-ment Report: Summary for policy makers

IPCC, London

Lohmann

L

2005 Marketing and making carbon dumps: com-modification, calculation and counterfactuals in climatechange mitigation

Science as Culture

14 203–35

McMichael

J, Campbell-Lendrum

D H, Corvalán C F, Ebi

K L,Githeko

A, Scheraga

J D and Woodward

A

eds 2003

Cli-mate change and human health – risks and responses

WHO,Geneva

Meyer

A

2005

Contraction and convergence: the globalsolution to climate change

Schumacher Briefing 5 GreenBooks, Totnes

Monbiot

G

2006

Heat: how to stop the planet burning

Pen-guin Allen Lane, London

Observer

2006 Revealed: where climate change is wipingout three million people

Observer

12 November

Schellnhuber

H J, Cramer

W, Nakicenovic

N, Wigley

T andYohe

G

eds 2006

Avoiding dangerous climate change

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Stern

N

2006

The Stern Review: the economics of climatechange

Cabinet Office, HM Treasury, London

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

2006 Carbonemissions from transport (http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/research/researchers/emissions.pdf) Accessed 15 December 2006

United Nations

2006 Millennium development goals indica-tors (http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Default.aspx) Accessed13 December 2006

Alternative futures for academic conferences: a response to Bonnett

Documents

Transcript of Alternative futures for academic conferences: a response to Bonnett