Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Contribute to Greenhouse Gas Emissions
dus writes "Many of the 10,000 scientists attending this week's annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) study climate change. Collecting them all in San Francisco undoubtedly increases our understanding of global warming, but it releases more than 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, pointed out one of this year's delegates."
Other scientists are lobbying for increased virtual conferencing.
I would have preferred that the scientists lobby for increased funding in virtual conferencing technlogies instead. I have yet to be part of a videoconference that could hold a candle to face-to-face meetings. No, I don't work in sales: I'm a scientist. I just feel that you lose an awful lot when you try to replace a meeting with a virtual one. A lot of the excited interchange that occurs in a face-to-face meething becomes a jumbled "who said that?" or "wait, did someone say something?" puzzle. I think the idea of virtual conferencing is a nice idea but still needs a lot more work before we can expect widespread adoption from scientists or businessmen. And that requires money.
The rewards of a well-developed virtual conferencing technology would go far beyond environmental concerns. By not having to spend so much time enroute to the destination (or back to your home), standing in airports, etc., people could gain back some of those "lost hours" that invariable occur during business travel. Not to mention it would save a lot of us the stress and hastle of breaking up our normal routine and enduring the growing hell of airport quagmire.
GMD
watch this
Yes, god forbid that ExxonMobil would want to try and curb greenhouse gas emissions. They are completely retarded, have no long term strategy and have no idea that being a leader in the 'clean-burning fuel' niche will help them out immensely when (not if) the government starts cracking down on the fuel side of emissions.
Go back to pestering Monsanto, they at least deserve it.
This type of ironic "look who is polluting" statement brings up the issue of how to allocate scare resources on a global basis . In this case we are assuming that the scientists' right to emit greenhouse gases (primarily C02 from all the airplane flights and maybe methane from the cows that went into the steak dinners) is a scarce resource. Personally, I argue for a market solution, such asgreenhousegas emissions credits, that let people or organizations with the most economically valuable applications of CO2/methane production to prevail.
The notion of any government agency ajudicating this allocation decision is appalling to me because the history of goverment is the history of undue influence by special interests. Whether that influence is the oil industry in the current U.S. government, the tyranny of the majority in all democracies, the king's cousin in an aristocracy, trade unions in communist countries, friends in high places, or Japanese farmers, I would argue that every government is subject to unfair, subjective, corruptible political influences.
By contrast I would argue that money, as evil as it seems, is purest way of "keeping score" of what a society values. Perhaps it is the fact that money is so much harder to create than the usual social-network forms of political influence that makes so many people abhor it so much.
With regard to scientists polluting to get to a conference, the price of getting to that conference should reflect the value of all the other activities that must be forgone on CO2 emissions limits. Thus, the scientists should "buy" the right to pollute from people who would sell their right to pollute. If too many other people have more valuable applications that emit CO2, then the scientists would give up their right to meet (more likely their right to fly in an airplane).
Publically traded greenhouse gas emissions credits may not be a perfect way to allocate this scarce resource, but it is better than all the other ways.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Yes, they are responsible for releasing carbon dioxide in their trips to get to the conference - just as we're responsible for releasing tons of CO2 every day. My response is: so what? This group of scientists is working together to effect global change, which will hopefully result in millions of tonnes of CO2 less, and will prevent catastrophic ecological consequences in the long run. If releasing a few tonnes now ultimately leads to major changes in our society, I say go for it. The long term benefits clearly outweigh the short term damage.
Pretty senseless to say gathering scientists in one spot increases their contribution to pollution. They would pollute in their respective cities anyway if they didnt travel.
Its fine to invest in gathering scientists despite their pollution for the purpose of deciding how to reduce pollution. Their solutions might be implemented on a global scale to reduce pollution on a much wider scale.
Better yet invite all scientists to arrive in San Francisco on bycicles. All those scientists losing weight will also fit more of them in the meeting room.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky