Should Scientists Fly? Should Anyone? Could Solutions be on Horizon?

June 2, 2018

Should scientists fly?
My response – Hell yes, if they need to.  Why, I know scientists who use computers, have watched a TV, and even driven a car.

I know some that have even taken a shower.

We’re not in trouble because scientists fly to do research and attend meetings.

We are in trouble because we’ve been burning coal and oil for 200 years, and because giant corporations knew 50 years ago that this is a problem we needed to address, and they made a conscious, deliberate decision to sacrifice the next 50,000 generations of human children, as well as a good portion of the living species who share the planet with us, to maintain their wealth and power – to squeeze that last million into their bloated bank accounts.

If I thought that by not boarding a plane, I could stop the plane from flying, that would indeed make it an actual choice. Such is not the case. We live in a world where people fly, use computers, drive cars – and we need to move to carbon free technologies to power that civilization efficiently – of which there are an expanding suite of economical choices.

Sara Myhre in Scientific American:

There is a great deal of public concern about when, and where to, climate scientists fly.

“Why do you fly?” they ask us.

“Where do you fly?”

“If you think climate change is a crisis, how can you ever fly?”

“Don’t you know,” they plead, “that the single most damaging choice to the climate system an individual can make is to fly in a commercial airplane?”

Irony notwithstanding, it is indeed climate scientists who established the carbon footprint and flagged the damage done by flying. And in doing so, we (and I mean that term loosely, because of how nebulous and overlapping the fields of climate are) have characterized the true damage of hyper-consumerist and highly mobile lifestyles—lifestyles exhibited by most of us in the developed world, including myself and my friends, neighbors, family and academic community.

Indeed, the complicity of flying is held up as a Rorschach test as to whether publicly-facing climate scientists understand the moral math of climate change. The culture wants to know: Are we crisis actors pantomiming alarmism, whilst we profiteer and jet around the globe to our fancy meetings? Or are we noble ascetics who have purified and aligned our carbon footprint with our rhetoric?  This dynamic—of finger-pointing, grandstanding, condemning and shaming—is an ongoing toxic hamster wheel, which further erodes and discredits the public trust in the good-faith actions of climate and earth scientists.

No other clade of experts who hold expertise on a public health and safety crisis is held to this standard. Do we demand to know from pediatricians their vaccination schedule for their own children? No, of course not. Do we interrogate oncologists about whether they have ever smoked a cigarette? No, of course not. Then, why do we feel that it is within our purview to require the flight itineraries of climate scientists?

Perhaps because it is true that commercial flying is the most damaging decision in terms of discrete carbon emissions that an average individual consumer can make. This means that “to fly or not to fly” is one of the fundamental levers that individuals can pull to reduce their personal carbon footprint. If climate scientists truly cared about bold climate action, why would they continue to fly and contradict their public advocacy? And if climate scientists want to be public messengers about the urgency of climate action, don’t they need to align their words with their public actions to demonstrate integrity?

This is the dizzying wormhole of nuance and moral crisis through which climate scientists are interrogated. We are scapegoated by the entire culture. Scapegoating, of course, is the psychological technique of transferring guilt to a weak and easy target, so that the scapegoater herself is relieved of feelings such as shame or guilt. Climate scientists are an easy target both for political bad actors who want to discredit the science and for activists hoping to reveal the moral compromises made by seemingly ineffective public leaders.

To be direct, many scientists in the field are often bamboozled and immobilized themselves, caught between the science they communicate and the middle-class familial and professional expectations of their lives. Radical action is hard, and the payoff seems to be small. Individual actors must make complicated and personal decisions.  For example, how do I tell my brother that I can’t come see his new beautiful baby in California because I no longer fly for familial reasons? How do I tell the National Science Foundation that I cannot travel to attend an elite communication summer school because I will only fly once a year for work?

I become deeply concerned when we begin to dictate who can, say, fly to their mother’s deathbed. Or who can fly to Hawaii for vacation. Or who can fly to which scientific meeting and where. My concern is not because of limitations on personal freedom. Frankly, I’d like fewer personal freedoms—for example, my freedom to buy AK-47s or my freedom to buy unchecked political influence. This isn’t about personal freedom. This is about the failure to indict the true centers of decision-making and power.

Why would we ever consider climate scientists an appropriate target for our outrage and action, when multinational corporations and gutless political leaders are making out like racketeers from heating the planet? Oil companies, such as Chevron, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell have generated multi-billion-dollar profits in the first quarter of 2018 alone. Moreover, actual elected leaders are trafficking in science denialism and propaganda in public institutions, wherein the existence of snowballs discredits climate warming and rocks falling into the ocean cause sea level rise. These are the exact targets for where our public outrage and grief should land.

There are very, very bad actors in this space of climate accountability. The problem is, these actors are some of the wealthiest and most powerful people on the planet, a cabal of mediocre and violent men who gatekeep our collective action on climate. To indict them publicly and directly is to court both the reality of the political and partisan moment of our time and the implied threat of an army of corporate lawyers. It is easier, quite frankly, to point at climate scientists as dubious and self-conflicted agents of alarmism, rather than prosecute the political and economic centers of power.

This is why climate action is about moral courage. Yes, we must have the courage to align our personal actions with our understanding of the science, through decreasing and stopping our flying. But, more importantly, we must have to courage to speak truth to power, despite how this might change our public or professional standing. Climate action is one of the most fundamental social justice movements of our time. No more and no less, our choices now to act as brave stewards of planetary life, despite political realities and institutional denialism, will change the trajectory of the planet forever. It is worth it.



26 Responses to “Should Scientists Fly? Should Anyone? Could Solutions be on Horizon?”

  1. Andy Lee Robinson Says:

    When the world finally dumps coal forever and when wind and solar become dominant, and most land and sea based transportation becomes electric, then together with afforestation and carbon sequestration the climate system can bear the emissions from air travel.
    It is probably the only thing that can’t easily be decarbonized unless powered by both liquid oxygen and hydrogen tanks, and that would not be a cheap solution.

    • J4Zonian Says:

      It’s really annoying when people make comments that reveal they either haven’t read/watched the OP or have absorbed so none of it they don’t even mention their disagreements with the point/s it makes.

  2. botterd Says:

    I feel bad about flying and driving. Sure. And about my cheap shirts, cheap food, and meat. Yes.
    Luckily I cycle almost exclusively, but I know I am lucky to be able to get away with not driving/flying for months at a time.

    But I will admit, it remains a problem for me, despite knowing that I have little impact in the general scheme of things. A couple of years ago I figured that one family vacation (flying/driving) cost as much as the entire family normally consumes in energy (incl. heating) in 3½ years.

    But I would be a fervent supporter of carbon taxes and non-subsidized jet fuel (costs about 10% now) and all sorts of clean energy mandates. I support spending the entire sum now spent on defence spending on clean energy, after all, it’s far more life and death than national security.

  3. Mark Goldes Says:

    All aircraft will be able to substitute water for jet fuel or Avgas in the near future. See MOVING BEYOND OIL at The water can be extracted from the atmosphere, ending any need to refuel. Major funds are pending to pioneer this conversion. Interested parties can accelerate the work.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: