A climate scientist on Wednesday said he was being threatened with the sack for refusing to fly back to Germany from a research trip in Papua New Guinea.
Gianluca Grimalda, a senior researcher at the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), has spent six months investigating the social effects of climate change in the Pacific island country.
Grimalda made most of the outward trip to Papua New Guinea by land and sea, taking 35 days to travel around 16,000 kilometers.
He wished to return entirely by cargo ships, ferries, trains and buses, he said in a statement shared by the campaign group Scientist Rebellion.
But the IfW Kiel is allegedly insisting approval for his trip ran out on September 10 and he must return immediately by plane.
Feels less like he’s being threatened because of his stance on flying, and more like because he’s already been out there a month longer than he was supposed to be, time he could’ve used to travel back more environmentally friendly, and they want him back now.
The extension was due to security threats, which presumably relate to travel options.
Well tough balls. If You wanted to have a person back sooner, they should have recalled them sooner. Seems like a mess of a scheduling and I’m not informed enough to make any conclusions. All I can say I have travelled in cargo ships, and I loved it!
I don’t think flying is the root of the problem.
But the IfW Kiel is allegedly insisting approval for his trip ran out on September 10 and he must return immediately by plane.
He should have been back weeks ago. They want him back quickly, not over a month from now. He’s already proven himself to be unreliable and unprofessional, so I’m not surprised the institute isn’t being more flexible than they already have been. He could have avoided flying by planning ahead. Jobs come with responsibilities.
He’s already been given several weeks of leeway, which is a LOT more than most of us could expect from our employers.
I know flights emit a lot, but surely the emissions related to sustaining a man for 35 days (food preparation and shipment, water purification, living space cleaning and powering) outweigh that?
You’d be surprised. Long trips literally produce tons.
The emissions of this trip, if every passenger flew economy, is >2 ton CO2 per person.
The annual emission of a eu citizen is 4 to 7 ton a year so for a month that’s 350kg, given that he is not living on eu standards it’s quite safe to take the lower bound. The co2 of hitching on cargo ships and trucks is neglectabel, but if he has to catch a bus for most land travel, we can set it to 500kg max.
Taking the plane emissions at the minimum bound and the alternative maximal, it’s still 3x less. And personal emissions I think we could reduce by a lot in the next 10 years with greener agriculture, industry and just consuming less. Plane travel will not improve drastically the coming 20 years
Presumably you’d need to compare that to his regular consumption for those 35 days, so marginally, it might really only be the water purification and a little extra weight of food.
It would kinda be interesting to see a detailed breakdown of the comparison.
A person eats and drinks every day, regardless of being on a journey, or stationary. If he sourced locally along the trip, there’s a good chance his emissions were lower, since Germany has higher per capita emissions than most countries, roughly estimated.
But even if he brought all the supplies from Germany, that would only increase transportation emissions slightly. Emissions for the goods themselves remained equal, wether they are consumed at home or elsewhere.
Probably not no, flying really does emit a shit ton
Removed by mod
He wants to travel home slowly via surface transport
What does that have to do with anything I said or was responding to?
Lots of people want lots of things, sometimes we just have to do what we have to do, even if it isn’t what we want to do.
Yeah, being a scientist/having a bunch of degrees doesn’t exempt you from being a dumbass
Jesus… Toxic much?
How would you summarize the comment I was replying to otherwise?
If you don’t agree, that’s fine, but from my own experience, even academics with a bunch of accreditations and experience can be missing common sense / let emotions overshadow their knowledge
A good example of high INT, low WIS
“Threatened with the sack”
Don’t threaten me with a good time
H A N N A ?
I get where he’s coming from but that plane is going to fly it’s route whether he’s on it or not.
I think it’s mainly two reasons: Consciousness, and trying to make the world a better place.
People similarly refuse to participate in other things which are done anyways. Think about veggies, Nestle, refusing to work in certain industries or for certain employers, reddit blackout, fair trade products.
People abstain from what they deem wrong to have no part in it. And to use the power they have to not support what they deem wrong, maybe even shed light on it and inspire others.
When enough people do the same, it absolutely can have real world consequences. Change has to start somewhere.
I also refuse to fly, but my commute isn’t 16000km either.
Very good points and well written.
That may be true for one particular flight but if all the people who fly only because “the plane is going anyway” stopped, I’m sure that would partially empty those planes enough that airlines would consider reducing the flights’ frequency. But if anyone knows studies/arguments implying the opposite, I’d be very interested to hear them.
TIL planes fly empty if no one buys a ticket
