Researchers have established manmade global warming beyond reasonable doubt, but have failed to change their own behaviour
When politicians and policymakers descend on Durban, South Africa, next week to shape the world's political response to climate change, many people will be sceptical about the outcome. Yet the very fact that this meeting is happening is partly testament to the role of scientists. Not only has their research established the link between human activities and global climate change, but they have also stepped out of their academic ivory tower to urge decision makers to address the risks it poses.
However, scientific evidence and explaining the implications of the research are only part of the solution.
We know that we need to reduce carbon emissions and how in principle to do it, but not enough is happening. Why? Because behavioural change is so difficult to achieve. Almost everybody would like to see carbon emissions drop, but closer to home, not many make a personal effort.
Scientists are no exception. The flight-related carbon footprint of scientists in a Norwegian climate research institute, for example, is around 4.5 tonnes of carbon per person per year. This is roughly equal to the total carbon footprint of the average person, including food, transport, heating, general consumption etc.
Despite the spread of internet-based communications, the number of scientific conferences and delegates have drastically increased. In short, scientists – including those who have generated the very insight into climate change – have not used these technological advances but have followed the economic growth model of the aviation industry. Aviation is the fastest-growing source of carbon emissions, despite great advances in the energy efficiency of modern aircraft.
The carbon footprint of the science community is tiny by comparison with the rest of society. Yet changes will not happen if nobody takes the lead. And people who have benefited from a great education and earn by comparison a very good income should surely be well positioned to take on some ethical leadership. Perhaps what we need is something along the lines of the Pugwash Conferences, a movement by scientists to demonstrate behavioural change for a low-carbon future.
We should not expect everyone to have the same carbon footprint. Different jobs will require different activities and hence result in more or less carbon emissions, but this does not mean that in scientific practice there is no scope for improvement. Obviously, the daily activities of a research laboratory need a critical review as well. But each extra flight, especially long-haul flights, makes a significant impact on the carbon budget of an individual researcher.
When politicians and policymakers descend on Durban, South Africa, next week to shape the world's political response to climate change, many people will be sceptical about the outcome. Yet the very fact that this meeting is happening is partly testament to the role of scientists. Not only has their research established the link between human activities and global climate change, but they have also stepped out of their academic ivory tower to urge decision makers to address the risks it poses.
However, scientific evidence and explaining the implications of the research are only part of the solution.
We know that we need to reduce carbon emissions and how in principle to do it, but not enough is happening. Why? Because behavioural change is so difficult to achieve. Almost everybody would like to see carbon emissions drop, but closer to home, not many make a personal effort.
Scientists are no exception. The flight-related carbon footprint of scientists in a Norwegian climate research institute, for example, is around 4.5 tonnes of carbon per person per year. This is roughly equal to the total carbon footprint of the average person, including food, transport, heating, general consumption etc.
Despite the spread of internet-based communications, the number of scientific conferences and delegates have drastically increased. In short, scientists – including those who have generated the very insight into climate change – have not used these technological advances but have followed the economic growth model of the aviation industry. Aviation is the fastest-growing source of carbon emissions, despite great advances in the energy efficiency of modern aircraft.
The carbon footprint of the science community is tiny by comparison with the rest of society. Yet changes will not happen if nobody takes the lead. And people who have benefited from a great education and earn by comparison a very good income should surely be well positioned to take on some ethical leadership. Perhaps what we need is something along the lines of the Pugwash Conferences, a movement by scientists to demonstrate behavioural change for a low-carbon future.
We should not expect everyone to have the same carbon footprint. Different jobs will require different activities and hence result in more or less carbon emissions, but this does not mean that in scientific practice there is no scope for improvement. Obviously, the daily activities of a research laboratory need a critical review as well. But each extra flight, especially long-haul flights, makes a significant impact on the carbon budget of an individual researcher.
