[Coral-List] Stop flying????!

Thu Mar 12 13:30:10 UTC 2020

Good points by ALL....and I disagree with NONE of them. So, an observation
and a suggestion. Observation: as scientists, we can't resist to cite
numbers and the assumption that more of them equals a better argument.
Suggestion: we should stop trying to advocate for our own personal choices
and EACH OF US should think about what else we might consider, hopefully in
addition to what we're already doing. I tired quickly of the vegan vs
no-travel vs chastity vs techno-fix arguments the first time around and
hope we don't dive down that rabbit hole again. I honestly don't know the
total benefit (or downside) of one meeting trip per year versus a
coal-powered home versus local beef compared to long-distance fruits and
veggies.

So, I'll just urge those in this discussion to applaud ANY effort by anyone
on the listserve. Arguing that "my solution" is better than "yours" does
little to help. And... it may cause someone who IS doing something to do
LESS because "it doesn't really help"). We should be applauding ANYONE's
effort to reduce their footprint (carbon or otherwise) by whatever means
they choose.

Just my opinion

Denny

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 1:31 PM Gaétan Morand via Coral-List <
coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> As we all know, if we want to try and mitigate climate change, we need to
> base our actions on actual information rather than feelings.
> I'm hoping I can contribute to this discussion by bringing in a few facts
> (with sources) on air travel and eating meat.
>
> One serving of beef is responsible for about 3kg of CO2 [1]. Most other
> meats have a lower carbon footprint.
> One return transatlantic flight is responsible for 1 to 1.6 tonne of CO2
> [2], which is the same as 330 to 530 beef steaks.
>
> This means that just one yearly transatlantic return flight offsets the
> emissions savings from being vegan.
>
> Yes, air transport is only responsible for a small part of global
> emissions, but only because a small percentage of people actually fly,
> whereas 90% of people globally eat meat [3].
> For perspective, if every person in the world took just one return
> transatlantic flight per year, it would represent a minimum of 7.5
> Gigatonne of CO2 (the current global emissions are around 36 Gigatonne per
> year [4]).
>
> In conclusion, reducing meat consumption is absolutely a priority as it is
> responsible for about 14.5% (7.1 Gigatonne) of global greenhouse gases
> emissions [5]. But on an individual scale, flying frequently is much worse
> than eating meat.
>
> Gaetan Morand
>
> [1] http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/carbon-footprint-factsheet
> [2]
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/jul/19/carbon-calculator-how-taking-one-flight-emits-as-much-as-many-people-do-in-a-year
> [3]
> https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2018-09/an_exploration_into_diets_around_the_world.pdf
> [4] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
> [5] http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Alina Szmant via Coral-List <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Stop flying????!
>
> Great if people want to stop flying. But ALL aviation is only 2 % of
> global fossil fuel emissions while animal agriculture produces 30 % of
> global emissions,  and animal agriculture account for 60+% of land use
> which means deforestation and habitat destruction, lots of pollution and
> animal suffering.  So go vegan and travel to your heart's content.
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Sue Wells via Coral-List <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Date: 3/9/20 9:14 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Stop flying????!
>
>
>
> Well done, Mark.  Yes, we must reduce our travel significantly - once the
> virus peak is over there is likely to be a rush to take holidays and hold
> meetings and the skies will be full of planes again.  You rightly question
> whether enough effort is being made to enable "virtual" attendance at coral
> reef meetings.  I know that people are looking into this, and hope that
> some
> solutions will soon be on offer.
>
>
>
> In the meantime, my recent positive experience might be of interest. Over
> the course of 4 days in February, from the comfort of my office in
> Cambridge, I dialled into two international meetings, one in Washington DC
> on MPAs and one in Germany on protected areas more generally.  Both were
> fairly small (DC had 65 participants, with 5 dialling in; Germany probably
> less than 50 with c. 3 dialling in) and involved plenary sessions with
> break-out discussion groups.  There was a joint session when the two
> meetings "met" virtually, with others dialling in remotely.  The meeting in
> Germany used "global.gotomeeting.com" and the DC meeting used "webex" -
> both
> systems seemed to work fairly well for those dialling in.
>
>
>
> Overall, the presentations worked well (as is the case with webinars), and
> I
> could follow the plenary Q&A sessions and for the most part get noticed if
> I
> wanted to ask a question myself.  Ironically the one session when the
> presentations did not work was the MPA one on technology, but this turned
> out to be "human error" rather than anything technical with the dialling-in
> system.
>
>
>
> One big advantage was that I could attend both meetings, unlike other
> participants.  With the time zone difference, this led to some long days
> but
> it was worth it.  I could provide feedback from one meeting to the other -
> particularly useful for the discussions on the CBD post2020 target for
> protected areas which evolved as the meetings progressed.
>
>
>
> So what did I miss? Break-out groups were of course not possible to join,
> and I did miss the social side (catching up with old friends and making new
> ones) and networking.  I would not want to do it for every meeting.
>
>
>
> But in some ways I achieved as much as I did by participating in person
> last
> year in another meeting on protected areas, held in a mountainous part of
> Italy.   In line with my aim not to fly when overland transport is
> available, I used trains and buses.  I spent 2 days and 3 nights (c. 60
> hrs)
> at the meeting location, and over 3.5 days and 2 nights (some 70 hrs)
> travelling.  Admittedly, there were some unusual aspects to the trip, which
> coincided on my way back with temperatures of 40oC in France and a major
> disruption to train services due to an accident But it gave me some real
> insight of what travelling will be like once the effects of climate change
> fully take hold.  International conservation meetings should definitely no
> longer be held in remote locations, however beautiful the surroundings,
> unless absolutely essential.
>
>
>
> As Mark says, we need to reduce travelling, keep flights to a minimum/those
> that are essential and unavoidable, and use the rapidly developing
> technology more effectively to keep in touch with each other.
>
>
>
> Sue Wells
>
>
>
> Sue Wells
>
> 95 Burnside
>
> Cambridge CB1 3PA
>
> Mob: 07905 715552
>
> e-mail:  <mailto:suewells1212 at gmail.com> suewells1212 at gmail.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>

-- 
Dennis Hubbard
Chair, Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074
(440) 775-8346

* "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"*
 Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*"