Stop funding academic flying

Stop funding academic flying!

June 2020

It's time for universities to stop funding academic flying. If scholars and researchers want to fly to an academic conference, they should pay for the trip themselves. University funding should be confined to conferences reached by surface transport, and virtual participation in more distant conferences. If money is saved by no longer financing flying, it should be spent on scholarships and fellowships for young researchers.

At first sight, this may seem like a radical proposal. But given what we now know about the contribution of aviation to climate change, it's hard to imagine any other reasonable solution.

Anthropogenic climate change as an existential threat

The increase in global mean surface temperature due to human emissions is so far about +1°C. The consequences are well-known. They include:

rising sea levels, glacial melt, shifting climate zones, vegetation zones and habitats, stronger or more frequent forest fires, changed occurrence of precipitation, stronger or more frequent extreme weather events such as floods, storms and droughts, spread of parasites and tropical diseases as well as environmental refugees (Wikipedia, “Consequences of global warming ")

If global greenhouse gas emissions do not decrease significantly in the next few years, the CO₂ budget for long-term warming of +1.5°C will be exhausted before 2030 (Millar et al., 2017; Tokarska & Gillett, 2018). Warming of +2°C will more than double the effect of +1°C (non-linearity; Friedrich et al., 2016). According to the IPCC (Masson-Delmotte et al., 2018), the consequences of +2°C relative to 1.5°C include:

Direct weather impacts: extreme temperatures, heatwaves, flooding, drought, cyclones;
Oceans: rising sea levels, temperature, acidity; dying coral reefs;
Aquatic life: irreversible impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems (extinctions), habitat, reproduction, disease, invasive species, coral bleaching;
Terrestrial life: range of insects, plants, vertebrates, degradation of high-latitude tundra & boreal forests, thawing of permafrost;
For humans: effects on health, food security, water supply, military security, economic growth; heat-related and ozone-related mortality; spread of vector-borne diseases (malaria, dengue fever); yields of maize, rice, wheat, soy; quality of rice and wheat; effects on livestock (feed quality, diseases, water resource availability).

We should be most concerned about human rights -- especially, the right to life. A temperature increase of +2°C is likely to cause around one billion premature human deaths in the long term (Parncutt, 2019). Poorer countries that contribute little to global emissions tend to be more vulnerable. A temperature increase of +2°C will also cause about 1/6 of all species to become extinct (Román-Palacios & Wiens, 2020; Urban, 2015).

Clearly, deep changes are urgently necessary. The entire global economy must switch to renewable sources of energy. Social and economic development must be decoupled from greenhouse gas emissions. Individuals with a high carbon footprint must significantly reduce it. By "must" I mean "must" in the strongest possible sense: the only long-term alternative is human self-destruction.

The role of universities

A typical intercontinental flight (round trip, economy) generates approx. 2 tonnes of CO₂, which is about 4t CO₂ equivalent (when other greenhouse gases are taken into account; atmosfair, EC/EU). That's more CO₂ than a typical car emits in one year. It is also comparable with eating 2000 Big Macs: producing 1 kg beef emits 15 kg CO₂, and a Big Mac contains 100g beef, that's 1.5 kg CO₂.

According to the European Environmental Agency (EEA), a flight within Europe generates 2 to 20 times more CO₂ per person than a corresponding bus or train journey. For example, flying from Graz to Frankfurt or from Graz to Milan in economy class typically produces 6-7 times more greenhouse gas emissions than taking the train (Hölbling, 2020). On this basis, it is not surprising that between 1/3 and 1/2 of the CO₂ produced by universities is from flying (Achieve et al., 2013; ETH Zurich, 2019; Hölbling, 2020). A similar proportion of the personal carbon footprint of a typical academic is from flying.

The right of academics to fly to conferences is surely insignificant relative to the right of children and future generations to inherit a world worth living in. While academics may have legitimate expectations about their personal or professional development (Meyer & Sanklecha, 2014), the right to life of a billion people is probably incomparably more important (Parncutt & Seither-Preisler, 2019). The easiest solution is to avoid flying completely (Baer, 2019; Grant, 2018) or to fly only in crucially important, exceptional cases (cf. Langin, 2019). Instead, we can develop new virtual forms of communication such as those tried out by many colleages during the corona crisis: virtual conferences, conventional conferences with additional virtual participation and virtual socializing, and multi-hub semi-virtual conferences (Klöwer et al., 2020; Parncutt et al., 2019).

Whereas these points have been well-known for a long time, we are still acting as if the consequences will be less serious than the predictions. In fact, the opposite is the case. Climate forecasts are often conservative (Brysse et al., 2013). For example, newer IPCC reports assume faster sea-level increase and arctic-sea ice shrinking than older ones. From a psychological perspective, people tend to underestimate unprecedented risks (e.g., Titanic, World War I; Weber, 2006; Yudkowsky, 2008).

Politically formulated and agreed goals are not being taken seriously. The agreements made by individual countries in Paris in 2015 are insufficient to keep warming below 2°C, let alone 1.5°C (Spash, 2016). In addition, countries are blatantly ignoring their own commitments. To take one of many examples, Australia is still planning and building massive new coal mines. Europe is doing better, but even the European Green Deal and the Austrian government program "Aus Verantwortung für Österreich" are falling short. Their ambitious goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 % in 2030 compared to 1990, which will necessitate multiple fundamental changes and transitions. It is hardly possible to achieve that if some sectors are expected to reduce and others are not. Regarding aviation, Vienna airport is building a new runway and Austrian Airways recently committed to continued growth as part of a corona rescue package. To my knowledge, no Austrian university rectorate has made concrete proposals about reducing academic flying (at least not before June 2020). Many academic staff are making recommendations (e.g., Kreil, ETH, 2019) but administrators are slow to follow.

The importance of these issues can hardly be overestimated. An unprecedented risk is being tacitly accepted. The future of human civilization is at stake (Besley & Peters, 2019; Leahy, 2010). Urgent international scientific warnings have been ignored for decades (Ripple et al., 2017). To continue to ignore them will have unprecedented ecological, social and ethical consequences.

Counterarguments and rebuttals

If there are good reasons for maintaining conventional single-location academic conferences, the reasons for abandoning them are even stronger.

Conventional conferences are good for academic creativity. Giving a live talk to international leaders in a given discipline, all sitting in the one room, certainly helps individuals to be creative in their scholarship and research. But how much does mobility promote creativity more generally, and in what ways (Cruz-Castro & Sanz-Menéndez, 2010; Van Heeringen & Dijkwel, 1987)? And why should we be in such a hurry to get to our destination? Long journeys clearly did not affect the creativity of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Franz Liszt, Clara Schumann or Artur Rubinstein. While Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, the Humboldt brothers, and Charles Darwin certainly traveled a lot, Emmanuel Kant never ventured far from Königsberg, and Isaac Newton's greatest discoveries were made in 1664-65 in bubonic self-quarantine on a farm in Lincolnshire. In the hectic 21st century, we need to rediscover the traditional virtues of patience and creativity as paths toward academic quality and insight (Capurso et al., 2014; Rudd, 2008; Thonhauser, 2014). A proven way to improve (academic) creativity is simply to go for a walk (Oppezzo & Schwartz, 2014). Presumably, it also helps to sit on a train for a while. When you escape from the rat race for a few hours, new ideas start to appear.

We should also think about the contribution of international academic conferences to world peace. It is certainly true that international networking increases international understanding. The EU is one such success story. But that does not mean we should continue to fly halfway across the world to academic conferences:

Carbon emissions are now destroying the future more than any past war has ever done.

Virtual communication can be more effective than face-to-face meetings for promoting world peace if electronic technology enables more people to participate -- especially colleagues from poorer countries, for whom military security is a bigger problem.

Aviation is elitist. It is not fair that only about 10% of the world can afford it. Whereas academic conferences may be a form of intercultural exchange and reconciliation on one level, they are also happening within a broader historical context of colonialism. Something akin to white superiority is being perpetuated by economic differences. Virtual communication can address this problem by allowing anyone to participate, based only on the quality of their academic contribution.

Flying and the environment: Some numbers

Considering all sources of carbon emissions, the average person emits 5 tonnes CO₂ equivalent per year. But there is enormous variation depending on wealth, from less than one tonne CO₂-eq in the poorest countries to 17 tonnes in US, Australia, and Canada, and even more in Kuwait, UAE and Qatar (Wikipedia: CO₂ balance; Our World in Data). Rich countries may represent only 16% of people, but the same countries produce 39% of direct carbon emissions and 46% of consumption-based emissions (Ritchie, 2018).

Air traffic currently generates 3% of global CO₂ emissions. Due to other greenhouse gases, the contribution to global radiative forcing is at least twice that (Jungbluth & Meili, 2019; Kärcher, 2018; Lee et al., 2009; Sausen et al., 2005). Although the research in this area is inconclusive, it is reasonable to assume that aviation is currently responsible for about 6% of global heating. The effect of the other greenhouse gases is often ignored. According to the EU commission, International flights contribute 3.2% to EU carbon emissions (the entire transportation sector; contributes 13.6%). In Austria, international flights contribute 2.7% and transportation 8.9%. But the effect of flying on climate is at least twice what these figures imply.

On top of that, global emissions from aviation are steadily increasing. Global air traffic (in passenger kilometers) is increasing faster (approx. 5%/year; Fleming & Ziegler, 2013) than the energy efficiency of aircraft (1%/year; Kharina et al., 2016). From 2000 to 2050, total emissions from aviation will have increased 2.0 to 3.6 times (Owen et al., 2010); note here that industry growth predictions may be underestimated by as much as 70% (Graver et al., 2019). By 2050, aviation could account for 100% of the CO₂ budget for +2°C (Bows et al., 2008).

People like to put their trust in technological progress. But in this case no environmentally friendly solution is on the horizon. None of the solutions that are usually cited can scale up to satisfy current global demand (see Allwood, 2020). Biofuels can hardly be produced without destroying rainforest or threatening existentially important food production. Electric batteries and hydrogen may enable short flights in light aircraft, but for large aircraft traveling long distances they are too heavy relative to the energy they produce. Reforestation and negative emission technologies are at best partial solutions (Becken & Mackey, 2017). Green flying is an illusion.

Climate ethics, climate justice, altruism, unilateralism

Anthropogenic climate change is an ethical problem (Gardiner, 2011). Those responsible tend to be rich and old, but the ones that will suffer the most are disproportionally poor (Whyte, 2018) and young (intergenerational injustice: Meyer, 2017; Meyer & Sanklecha, 2017). Climate change is also sexist, affecting women more than men (WHO, 2011).

International climate negotiations present an additional practical problem. While most national participants strive for sensible solutions (see “Nash equilibrium”; Rubinstein, 1995), progress is invariably impeded by nationalists and deniers who are fundamentally unwilling to negotiate in a reasonable fashion. To be successful in our own interests, therefore, we have to act unilaterally, reducing our own emissions first before expecting others to do likewise (Bernauer & Gampfer, 2015; De Dominicis et al., 2017; Drahos & Downie, 2017).

Altruism is not unusual behavior, not is it especially idealistic. Humans have evolved to engage naturally in reciprocal altruism (Trivers, 1971). Philosophical theories of altruism such as that of Kant (Rentmeester, 2010) add a new and important level but are not strictly necessary.

Countless examples could be given. Why should the US reduce emissions if China doesn’t? Why should the concrete industry reduce if the meat industry doesn’t? Should aviation get special privileges given the technological and environmental difficulties of low-carbon flight? Who cares about Australia if it’s only producing 1 to 2% of global emissions (depending on how they are counted) despite having only 0.3% of the population? The answer in every case is to engage in unilateral climate-change mitigation, also called unilateralism. If humanity is going to have a future worth living in, all emitters in all categories must ambitiously and urgently reduce emissions, and they must do so by a large amount (not 10%, but 90%), regardless of what others are doing.

That does not mean that responsibility is distributed equally. The implicit moral obligation of individuals to contribute constructively to climate solutions depends on several factors:

lifetime or yearly carbon footprint, which depends mainly on how much we fly (given the enormous carbon footprint of just one flight);
financial means including income, wealth, and financial security (cf. Oswald et al., 2020), which help us to successfully address political problems;
level of education, which helps us to understand the environmental and political situation from the viewpoint of different disciplines such as physics, politics, or psychology;
skin color (white people enjoy multiple implicit privileges);
gender (men enjoy multiple implicit privileges);
age (older people will die sooner and miss the worst of the impending global catastrophe); and
any other personal attributes that may be associated with hidden privileges, such as heterosexuality, health (lack of disability), "normal" appearance and voice, being a native speaker of an internationally dominant language (English), or association with the internationally dominant religion (Christianity).

Those of us who test positive on several or perhaps all of these points have relatively high "political capital", which implies a greater moral obligation to act for the common good. Here, that mainly means two things: strengthening our political opposition to the biggest polluters and reducing our personal carbon footprint.

The latter may mean foregoing privileges that we previously took for granted. That makes "doing without" a central issue. Are we prepared to do without flying now, or do we prefer to force future people to do without a reasonable standard of living, health, or security? Do we prefer to force future people to die young? The question may seem exaggerated, but we cannot ignore it as if we did not know.

In 2020, the time is ripe for ambitious goals. Academics are social role models. We can:

define and implement the term “climate justice” in our sphere of activity;
expose the ethical bankruptcy of climate denial in its various guises (cf. Broome, 2019);
consciously avoid cosmetic measures that may appear ecological at first sight but actually bring little benefit; and
act as role models for business and tourism.

Concrete strategies

Consider the following simple, clear solution for international conferences:

travel by train or bus if the distance is less than 1000 km
participate electronically for more distant conferences (virtual presentation, discussion, socializing)

I have personally tested this solution. I live in central Europe. Since 2015, I have presented my research without flying or driving in Madrid, Oxford, Birmingham, Dijon, Gent, Maastricht, Prague, Vienna, Geneva, Katowitz, Warsaw, Łódź, Budapest, Cluj, Belgrade, Vilnius, Tallinn, Zagreb, and Budapest. In 2020, the following trips were canceled due to the corona virus: Brussels, Lviv, Kiev, Aarhus, Moscow.

The advantages of this approach for me include:

Trains are usually comfortable for working on a laptop.
I made a lot of new regional contacts. The number of foreign students who want to study with me has increased.
I no longer waste time wondering whether I will fly or not. Planning travel has become simpler.

In 2018, I co-organized an academic conference (ICMPC15 / ESCOM10) that for the first time happened simultaneously on four continents. During parallel sessions, participants could usually choose between simultaneous live and virtual presentations. Each presentation was witnessed both live and virtually by participants sitting together in regular lecture halls. All lectures were available to all participants separately as live streams. To explain our approach, we published an academic paper (Parncutt et al., 2019) and created a YouTube video ("The semi-virtual academic conference").

Many academic colleagues are understandably concerned about missing big international conferences. We respectfully ask those colleagues to consider the relative importance of conference presentations and journal publications for academic careers. Publications in specialist journals are much more important than conference presentations in academic CVs. International conferences may help authors write their papers, but that process can also happen virtually or semi-virtually. Many universities are already generously financing open access journals; in return, they could ask employees to travel only by train or bus and participate virtually in more distant conferences.

Flying often seems to be cheaper than surface transport -- but not when one is aware of the options and considers total overall costs in both money and time (Wills, & Grün, 2018). Here is an example for colleagues living in Austria: To attend three European conferences in the space of two months, you can invest €400 in an Interrail ticket that is valid for 10 days in the space of 2 months. You will also need some extra tickets for travel within Austria (get a discount with your "Vorteilscard") and some reservations including sleeping cars.

Suggestions for university management

The following strategies could usefully be adopted by any university:

1. Monitor all flight emissions by all members of the university and make this information publicly accessible.

2. Ask all colleagues to avoid flying, if possible -- without restricting existing travel budgets.

3. Finance new doctoral scholarships and carbon offsets from any money saved by this strategy. For younger scholars, it is more important to provide reliable income than to finance travel.

4. Promote new CO₂-neutral conference formats and virtual participation at distant conferences by a combination of financial incentives and technical support. Ask organizers for two kinds of budget: financial and environmental. Limit the number of flying keynotes to one per conference. Offer an annual award for the most innovative, climate-friendly, academically promising international conference.

5. Stop funding flights. Do this gradually, but also decisively and consistently.

a. For professors or colleagues with tenure, refund 50% of total travel costs (including hotel and conference fee) for one year. After that, stop funding conference trips altogether if they involve flying.
b. For lecturers or colleagues without tenure: fund 67% in the first year and 33% in the second. After that, stop.

6. Divest! End all direct and indirect investments in the fossil fuel industry -- not only funding flying, but all the others as well.

7. Promote international rail infrastructure. Since I am living in Austria, let me explain how that could be done from an Austrian perspective. Our national railways (ÖBB) are unsung world leaders in international night trains. These connections in the centre of Europe enable Europeans to travel thousands of km within 1-2 days. Austrian night trains are an essential part of the European long-distance train network. Austrian universities should encourage staff to take long-distance train journeys and work en route. 24-hour train trips are no problem from the point of view of productivity: traveling by plane takes a day anyway. We aren't working in the night, but during the day we can work on trains. Austrian universities should be publicizing and promoting the best existing long-distance connections -- not only to Berlin and Rome, but also to Palermo, Kiew and Moscow. Most important, we should be promoting the construction and upgrading of new fast direct connections to all corners of Europe, including Athens and Istanbul (improving European connections for all parts of ex-Jugoslavia) but also London and Edinburgh.

8. Comment publicly on national climate policy, perhaps in the following way: Climate change poses an existential threat to human civilization. To ensure long-term survival (including the survival of universities and the global academic system), effective measures and rapid changes are urgently needed. The recommendations of relevant experts such as climate scientists, climate economists, and climate ethicists should be taken seriously and implemented. These include for example: climate-friendly digitization and town/regional planning, improved energy efficiency and expansion of renewable energy industries, environmentally friendly carbon storage and tax reforms, new ecologically friendly economic models, and climate-oriented education and research (Kirchengast et al., 2019). Visible options include massive expansion of public transport in cities, regions, and across continents; reduced speed limits on all roads; higher kerosene taxes, so trains and buses are always cheaper than flying, even for long distances; transition to sustainables in all fossil fuel industries; more green space and wetlands in cities to promote biodiversity; higher residential buildings to increase green space and make public transport more economically viable.

Related projects

The following projects are interesting and relevant but sometimes problematic:

Switzerland: Stay grounded, keep connected. Flight emissions from ETH Zurich
UK: Tyndall Travel Strategy (tyndall.ac.uk)
Germany: Unter1000.scientists4future.org/de/selbstverpflichtung-gute-beispiele
Germany: I don't do it under 1000 km (unter1000.de)

The bottom line is the proportion of CO₂ emissions that such projects actually save. ETH Zurich is currently aiming for a per-capita reduction of only 11% by 2025. The situation is much more urgent than that! We should be saving 80% of emissions in the next few years. As the Austrian feminist politician Johanna Dohnal once said (freely translated): "Treading lightly for tactical reasons usually turns out in retrospect to have been a mistake."

Why end the tradition of refunding flying costs?

Academics should now be encouraged to travel to conferences and other meetings by train or bus and participate virtually in more distant conferences. A change of this kind would have the following immediate benefits:

It would accurately reflect the urgency of the climatic situation, considering the best current research and the academic consensus among climate scientists.
It would be uncomplicated and avoid additional bureaucratic effort.
It would be economically viable. New financial resources would become available for hi-tech virtual communication at conferences. Academic colleagues would have the opportunity to try out new approaches and evaluate them.
There would be no restriction on freedom of research. Colleagues could still fly anywhere.
The policy would be reported in the media. Other universities and organizations including some businesses would follow suit. Universities would establish themselves as climate models for others to follow.

Acknowledgement. Thanks to Stefanie Hölbling for helpful suggestions.

References

Achten, W.M., Almeida, J. & Muys, B. (2013). Carbon footprint of science. Ecological Indicators, 34, 352–355.

Allwood, J. (2020 February 7). The only way to hit net zero by 2050 is to stop flying. Financial Times.

Bernauer, T., & Gampfer, R. (2015). How robust is public support for unilateral climate policy? Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 316-330.
Baer, H. A. (2019). The elephant in the sky: On how to grapple with our academic flying. Anthropology Today, 35(4), 21-24.

Becken, S., & Mackey, B. (2017). What role for offsetting aviation greenhouse gas emissions in a deep-cut carbon world? Journal of Air Transport Management, 63, 71-83.

Besley, T., & Peters, M. A. (2019). Life and death in the Anthropocene. Educational Philosophy and Theory, online.

Bows, A., Anderson, K., & Upham, P. (2008). Aviation and climate change. Routledge.

Broome, J. (2019). Against denialism. Monist, 102(1), 110-129.

Brysse, K., Oreskes, N., et al. (2013). Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 327-337.

Capurso, V., Fabbro, F., & Crescentini, C. (2014). The influence of mindfulness meditation on creative thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1020.

Cruz-Castro, L., & Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2010). Mobility versus job stability: Assessing tenure & productivity outcomes. Research Policy, 39(1), 27-38.

De Dominicis, S., Schultz, P., & Bonaiuto, M. (2017). Protecting the environment for self-interested reasons: Altruism is not the only pathway to sustainability. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1065.

Drahos, P., & Downie, C. (2017). Regulatory unilateralism: Arguments for going it alone on climate change. Global Policy, 8(1), 32-40.
Fleming, G., & Ziegler, U. (2013). Environmental trends in aviation to 2050. ICAO Environmental report.

Friedrich, T., Timmermann, A., Tigchelaar, M., Timm, O. E., & Ganopolski, A. (2016). Nonlinear climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming. Science Advances, 2(11), e1501923.

Gardiner, S. M. (2011). A perfect moral storm: The ethical tragedy of climate change. Oxford University Press.

Grant, C. (2018, May). Academic flying, climate change, and ethnomusicology. Ethnomusicology Forum, 27(2), 123-135.

Graver, B., Zhang, K., & Rutherford, D. (2019). CO₂ emissions from commercial aviation, 2018. Int. Council on Clean Transportation. theicct.org.

Hölbling, S. (2020). Lower carbon mobility: Towards more sustainable international scientific travel of Wegener Center and beyond. Master’s thesis, University of Graz.

Jungbluth, N., & Meili, C. (2019). Recommendations for calculation of the global warming potential of aviation including the radiative forcing index. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(3), 404-411.

Kärcher, B. (2018). Formation and radiative forcing of contrail cirrus. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1-17.

Kharina, A. Rutherford, D., & Zeinali, M. (2016). Cost assessment of near and mid-term technologies to improve new aircraft fuel efficiency. International Council on Clean Transportation. theicct.org.

Kirchengast, G., Kromp-Kolb, H., Steininger, K., Stagl, S., Kirchner, M., Ambach, Ch., Grohs, J., Gutsohn, A., Peisker, J., Strunk, B. (2019). Referenzplan als Grundlage für einen wissenschaftlich fundierten und mit den Pariser Klimazielen in Einklang stehenden Nationalen Energie- und Klimaplan für Österreich (Ref-NEKP). Wien: ÖAW.

Klöwer, M., Hopkins, D., Allen, M., & Higham, J. (2020). An analysis of ways to decarbonize conference travel after COVID-19. Nature 583, 356-359.
Kreil, A. (2019). Measures for academic air travel reduction. ETH Zürich.
Langin, K. (2019). Climate scientists say no to flying. Science, 364(6441), 621.

Leahy, T, Bowden, V and Threadgold, S. (2010). Stumbling towards collapse. Environmental Politics 19(6), 851–868.

Lee, D. S., Fahey, D. W., Forster, P. M., Newton, P. J., Wit, R. C. N., Lim, L. L., Owen, B., Sausen, R. (2009): Aviation and global climate change in the 21st century. Atmospheric Environment, 43, 3520-3537.
Masson-Delmotte, V, et al. (Eds., 2018). Global warming of 1.5°C. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization.

Meyer, L. H. (Ed., 2017). Intergenerational justice. Routledge.

Meyer, L. H., & Sanklecha, P. (2014). How legitimate expectations matter in climate justice. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 13(4), 369-393.

Meyer, L. H., & Sanklecha, P. (Eds.). (2017). Climate justice and historical emissions. Cambridge University Press.

Millar, R. J., et al. (2017). Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 C. Nature Geoscience, 10(10), 741-747.

Mobilitätsplattform ETH Zürich (2019 June). Stay Grounded, Keep Connected. www.ethz.ch/mobilitaet.

Oppezzo, M., & Schwartz, D. L. (2014). Give your ideas some legs: The positive effect of walking on creative thinking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(4), 1142.
Oswald, Y., Owen, A., & Steinberger, J. (2020). Large inequality in international and intranational energy footprints between income groups and across consumption categories. Nature Energy.

Owen, B., Lee, D. S., & Lim, L. (2010). Flying into the future: Aviation emissions scenarios to 2050. Environmental Sci. & Technol., 44(7), 2255-2260.

Parncutt, R. (2019). The human cost of anthropogenic global warming. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2323.

Parncutt, R., Meyer-Kahlen, N., & Sattmann, S. (2019). Live-streaming at international academic conferences: Technical and organizational options for single- and multiple-location formats. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 7, 51.

Parncutt, R., & Seither-Preisler, A. (2019). Live streaming at international academic conferences: Ethical considerations. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 7, 55.

Rentmeester, C. (2010). A Kantian look at climate change. Essays in Philosophy, 11(1), 76-86.

Ripple, W. J. et al. (2017). World scientists’ warning to humanity: A second notice. BioScience, 67(12), 1026-1028.

Ritchie, H. (2018). Global inequalities in CO₂ emissions, based on consumption. My World in Data, internet.

Román-Palacios, C., & Wiens, J. J. (2020). Recent responses to climate change reveal the drivers of species extinction and survival. PNAS.

Rubinstein, A. (1995). John Nash: The master of economic modeling. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 97(1), 9-13.

Rudd, A. (2008). Kierkegaard on Patience and the Temporality of the Self. Journal of Religious Ethics, 36(3), 491-509.

Sausen, R., Isaksen, I., Grewe, W., Hauglustaine, D., Lee, D. S., Myhre, G., Köhler, M. O., Pitari, G., Schumann, U., Stordal, F., Zerefos, C. (2005): Aviation radiative forcing in 2000: An update on IPCC (1999). Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 14, 555–561.
Spash, C. L. (2016). This changes nothing: The Paris Agreement to ignore reality. Globalizations, 13(6), 928-933.
Thonhauser, G. (2014). Über das Konzept der Zeitlichkeit bei Søren Kierkegaard mit Hinblick auf Martin Heidegger. Herder.

Tokarska, K. B., & Gillett, N. P. (2018). Cumulative carbon emissions budgets consistent with 1.5 C warming. Nature Climate Change, 8(4), 296.

Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35-57.
Urban, M. C. (2015). Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science, 348(6234), 571-573.

Weber, E. U. (2006). Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Clim. Chang. 77, 103–120.

Whyte, K. (2018). Settler colonialism, ecology, environmental injustice. Environment and Society, 9(1), 125-144.

Wills, T., & Grün, G.-C. (2018). Trains vs. planes: What's the real cost of travel? Dw.com

World Health Organisation (2011). Gender, climate change and health. who.int

World Health Organisation (2017). Climate change and health.

Van Heeringen, A., & Dijkwel, P. (1987). The relationships between age, mobility and scientific productivity. Scientometrics, 11(5-6), 267-280.

Yudkowsky, E. (2008). Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks. In N. Bostrom & M. M. Ćirković (Eds.), Global catastrophic risks (pp. 91–119). New York: Oxford University Press.

The opinions expressed on this page are the authors' personal opinions.
Suggestions for improving or extending the content are welcome at parncutt@gmx.at.
Back to Richard Parncutt's homepage