Advertisement

WE have to change! The carbon footprint of ECPR general conferences and ways to reduce it

  • Sebastian JäckleEmail author
Profession

Abstract

The political consequences of climate change have been topics at numerous political science conferences. Contrary to the plurality of discussions at these meetings, it is striking that there is no systematic account of the carbon footprint of political science conferences themselves. Applying a GIS-based approach I estimate the travel induced greenhouse gas emissions of the last six ECPR General Conferences (2013–18). The results show that for the five conferences that took part in Europe the average emissions per attendee were between 0.5–1.3 tons CO2-equivalents. At the 2015 conference in Montreal it were even 1.9–3.4 tons. Compared to estimations based on the latest IPCC reports which call for a reduction of per capita emissions to 2.5 tons by 2030 and even 0.7 tons by 2050 in order to keep on track with the 1.5-degree goal, the travel induced GHG-emissions of ECPR conferences are very high. Yet, further estimations demonstrate that significant emission reductions are possible: by choosing more central conference venues, promoting low-emission landbound means of transportation and introducing online participation for researchers from far away, the carbon footprint could be reduced by 75–90 per cent. The article also gives concrete recommendations how the carbon footprint of conferences could be reduced.

Keywords

Greenhouse gas emissions Climate change ECPR general conferences Estimation Carbon footprint 

Notes

References

  1. Attari, S., D. Krantz, and E. Weber. 2016. Statements about climate researchers’ carbon footprints affect their credibility and the impact of their advice. Climatic Change 138(1–2): 325–338.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1713-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avery-Gomm, S., S. Hammer, and G. Humphries. 2016. The age of the Twitter conference. Science 352(6292): 1404–1405.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.352.6292.1404-b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bankamp, D., and R. Seppelt. 2013. Managing resources of a limited planet—Or, how to organise an environmentally friendly congress. Environmental Modelling and Software 46: 299–303.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.03.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blue, G. 2016. Framing climate change for public deliberation: What role for interpretive social sciences and humanities? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 18(1): 67–84.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2015.1053107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bossdorf, O., M. Parepa, and M. Fischer. 2010. Climate-neutral ecology conferences: Just do it! Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25(2): 61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.09.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Delreux, T., and F. Ohler. 2019. Climate policy in european union politics. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics, ed. T. Delreux, and F. Ohler.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1097.
  7. Desiere, S. 2016. The carbon footprint of academic conferences: Evidence from the 14th EAAE congress in Slovenia. EuroChoices 15(2): 56–61.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fox, H.E., P. Kareiva, B. Silliman, J. Hitt, D.A. Lytle, B.S. Halpern, and H. Tallis. 2009. Why do we fly? Ecologists’ sins of emission. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(6): 294–296.  https://doi.org/10.1890/09.WB.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grémillet, D. 2008. Paradox of flying to meetings to protect the environment. Nature 455: 1175.  https://doi.org/10.1038/4551175a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holden, M.H., N. Butt, A. Chauvenet, M. Plein, M. Stringer, and I. Chadès. 2017. Academic conferences urgently need environmental policies. Nature Ecology and Evolution 1(9): 1211–1212.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0296-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoyer, K.G., and P. Naess. 2001. Conference tourism: A problem for the environment, as well as for research? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9(6): 451–470.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580108667414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. IGES. 2019. 1.5-Degree lifestyles: Targets and options for reducing lifestyle carbon footprints. Technical report, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Aalto University.Google Scholar
  13. Javeline, D. 2014. The most important topic political scientists are not studying: Adapting to climate change. Perspectives on Politics 12(2): 420–434.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714000784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kettunen, T., J.-C. Hustache, I. Fuller, D. Howell, J. Bonn, and D. Knorr. 2005. Flight efficiency studies in Europe and the United States. Presented at the 6th USA/Europe Seminar on ATM Research and Development, Baltimore, 25 June 2005. http://www.atmseminar.org/seminarContent/seminar6/papers/p_055_MPM.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2019.
  15. Kuonen, S. 2015. Estimating greenhouse gas emissions from travel—A GIS-based study. Geographica Helvetica 70(3): 185–192.  https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-70-185-2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, T. Waterfields. eds.. 2018. Global warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty’ (Special Report No. 15), IPCC.Google Scholar
  17. Nordås, R., and N.P. Gleditsch. 2007. Climate change and conflict. Political Geography 26(6): 627–638.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2007.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pedersen, R.L., and D.P.M. Lam. 2018. Second comment on ‘The climate mitigation gap: Education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions’. Environmental Research Letters 13(6): 068001.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aac9d0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pihkola, H., M. Nors, M. Kujanpaa, T. Helin, M. Kariniemi, T. Pajula, H. Dahlbo, and S. Koskela. 2010. Carbon footprint and environmental impacts of print products from cradle to grave: Results from the LEADER project (part 1).Google Scholar
  20. Rosen, J. 2017. Sustainability: A greener culture. Nature 546(7659): 565–567.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7659-565a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Scarborough, P., P.N. Appleby, A. Mizdrak, A.D.M. Briggs, R.C. Travis, K.E. Bradbury, and T.J. Key. 2014. Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Climatic Change 125(2): 179–192.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Spinellis, D., and P. Louridas. 2013. The carbon footprint of conference papers. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066508.Google Scholar
  23. van Basshuysen, P., and E. Brandstedt. 2018. Comment on ‘The climate mitigation gap: Education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions’. Environmental Research Letters 13(4): 048001.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aab213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wynes, S., and K.A. Nicholas. 2017. The climate mitigation gap: Education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environmental Research Letters 12(7): 074024.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Consortium for Political Research 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Seminar für Wissenschaftliche PolitikAlbert-Ludwigs-Universität FreiburgFreiburg im BreisgauGermany

Personalised recommendations