Just noticed an article in our local newspaper today that highlighted the irony of sustainability researchers inadvertently having a larger than average eco-footprint. This makes logical sense though, since folks doing research tend to need to publish their findings and this tends always to be a work intensive venture , which also requires the need to present data (at meetings, conferences, etc). They may have labs, so their workspace footprint is larger than most, and such space needs the usual amenities that require the use of energy (heating, air conditioning, lighting, etc).
A Montreal professor, who is sheepish that his biodiversity research generated four times the carbon dioxide emissions that an average Canadian does annually, says academia should shrink its swollen carbon footprint.
The ivory tower pays only token attention to its hefty environmental impact, said Herve Philippe, a biochemist at the University of Montreal, who wants science scholars to ease up on their addiction to international conferences and ideally, slow down the research frenzy.
"The effort is negligible," said Philippe, who produced 44 tonnes of carbon dioxide completing his doctorate by running his computers full tilt and blasting the air-conditioning in his laboratory.
Philippe said he never dreamed that his efforts to advance the knowledge of biodiversity would have a negative impact on biodiversity.
(by Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News Service - link not sure if this is accessible without a subscription)
This particular article was on researchers who focused on biodiversity, but truth be told, the people I've met in the sustainability field are very conscious of their "footprint." For instance, I know that when I visit our Institute for Resource, Environmental and Sustainability (UBC IRES), it's bad form to use the elevator when you can use the steps. As well, I remember one time when I met Bill Rees (the researcher who gave us the concept of the ecological footprint), he commended us because our wireless mikes used bullclips to secure the microphone to his shirt - it was, I suppose, an example of extending the life and utility of an object.
Anyway, I'm kind of curious - do you think doing things such as purposely avoiding the elevator to save energy is an act with good intentions, or do you think it's kind of overkill?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
IMO, avoiding the elevator is an obvious thing to do. Not only does it save energy but it makes you healthier, and often saves time too. It just slays me when able-bodied people take the elevator in my building.
In general, I've found that environmental scientists (broadly defined) are actively working to reduce their own environmental footprints, or at the least are uncomfortable with the cognitive dissonance between their work and their life.
What about "education offsets" for researchers? Sort of like carbon offsets, we could get feel better about the footprints of our labs and travel based on educating students and getting them to reduce their emissions.
There was a news article in Science not too long ago about efforts to "green" biomedical research labs. Here's the link:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/318/5847/39
I go through cycles of teeth-grinding guilt about the plastics waste that I generate doing primary cell culture and molecular biology. I can't think of anyone here who washes glass pipettes the "old-fashioned way", rather than using the plastic disposable type.
Our university has a green coordinator who must be consulted for new projects but in reality her voice does not seem to receive the respect it deserves. Our new building is full of obvious design mistakes that cost energy in non-trivial amounts.
Ironically Microsoft Windows is a reason for the carbon imprint of the 500+ computers in our building. The wake/sleep controls in Windows are too unreliable in a complex environment to be depended upon to facilitate nighttime delivery of Microsoft security patches and other necessary automated maintenance. So they are set to run full-tilt. Otherwise we get machines that are 30 patches behind and need defragging.
But we are stuck with Windows because so many specialized business applications require it. (It's a business college)
It took me years to even get agreement to set monitors to turn off after a period of inactivity because "it would confuse faculty and students" if they had to bump the mouse to reawaken the monitor. At least we just got rid of the rest of our CRT's in favor of LCD's.
Now I am going through our computer infrastructure with a wattmeter developing a report that I intend to publicize, along with recommendations for remediation. It is like dragging a half-full waterbed up hill.
Also, very few people use the recycling bins. Our trash cans are full of aluminum cans. So I'm a little depressed about environmental awareness in academia. It's as if people take a perverse pride in waste.
Interesting discussion. Besides IT, the most obvious carbon emission in academia must be international conferences. I just attended one in Zürich -- two hours by train for me, but for some of the participants that means transatlantic flights just to deliver a 20 minutes paper and meet some collegues. There is a call for a strong internationalization of science and academia -- but does that make sense, carbon-wise?
Meetings could make better use of teleconferencing and the internet. Why not stream presentations and put up PDF's of posters on the meeting sites? You would lose face-to-face networking though.
Novathecat -- that's right (and one reason why I put my question as does the internationalization makes sense, and not suggesting teleconferencing). Maybe an interesting institutional arrangement would be a international conference week/month with a fixed place each year, and international conferences outside of this space-time slot shunned.