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


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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12


  1. 1.

    Being accepted as a presenter at a prestigious conference is seen as an indicator for scientific achievements. That is also why we find conference participations in most scientific CVs.

  2. 2.

    While long-haul flights reach higher altitudes where the CO2 exerts more harmful effects the high-emission take-off and landing phases make up a higher proportion in short-haul flights. Thus, in this paper no distinction between long-haul and short-haul flights will be made.

  3. 3.

    In accordance with the general usage of the term I subsume not only carbon dioxide (CO2) to GHG, but also methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (NO2). The overall GHG emissions are presented in CO2 equivalents.

  4. 4.

    The 2011 ECPR General Conference in Reykjavik had probably a similar or even higher carbon footprint. Yet, for this conference, as for the others before, no paper/presenter details were available at the ECPR website, so that I was not able to estimate the GHG emissions for them.

  5. 5.

    In order to come to a more realistic estimate it would be necessary to know the average speed of a train on a given route section of the railway network (just as Openrouteservice offers for the street network). Yet, such data is unfortunately not available.

  6. 6.

    For the train scenario the difference between the conferences in Oslo and Hamburg is even a bit higher than for the bus scenario: 242–434 kg CO2-eq.

  7. 7.

    A further argument for Frankfurt would be that it has one of Europe’s largest airports (4th after London Heathrow, Paris Charles de Gaulle, and Amsterdam Schiphol) which serves a lot of direct flights to major cities, thus minimising the need for longer travel distances due to transfers.

  8. 8.

    These estimates are probably even much too high given the fact that a number of participants already are vegetarians or vegans (no more reduction possible) and that ECPR only offers lunch catering and one reception, so that the majority of meals taken during the conference cannot be influenced by the ECPR.


  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Grémillet, D. 2008. Paradox of flying to meetings to protect the environment. Nature 455: 1175. https://doi.org/10.1038/4551175a.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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).

  20. Rosen, J. 2017. Sustainability: A greener culture. Nature 546(7659): 565–567. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7659-565a.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Spinellis, D., and P. Louridas. 2013. The carbon footprint of conference papers. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066508.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Jäckle.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jäckle, S. WE have to change! The carbon footprint of ECPR general conferences and ways to reduce it. Eur Polit Sci 18, 630–650 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-019-00220-6

Download citation


  • Greenhouse gas emissions
  • Climate change
  • ECPR general conferences
  • Estimation
  • Carbon footprint