With the
waves rolling in, I followed the wooden bridge onto the sand, just as my watch
again warned me of its critically low battery level. After three years of
exemplary service everywhere from the mountains of California to the streets of Tallinn, my Suunto 9 Peak had refused all attempts to charge it so, before
heading out, I had ordered a new (or rather refurbished) Suunto 9 Peak Pro from
the factory in Finland. Luckily, the battery held up long enough for me to
complete my half-marathon loop.
Once back
home, I booked tickets to Umeå in mid-October for an environmental ethics
conference that has apparently had a change of heart after previously rejecting
my submission. That alone was intriguing enough to warrant my attendance, and
by combining night trains and flights, I will be able to attend while still
doing my planned teaching in Halmstad. Paying 500 SEK extra out of my own
pocket for biofuels (as that is not covered by the university travel policy), I
realize that I really need to say something about that, not least in relation
to yet another post on LinkedIn about those who say that what we do in
Sweden does not matter for the climate.
While it is technically true that Sweden is responsible for only 0.1–0.2 percent of global emissions (roughly equivalent to its share of the world’s population), the way we go about reducing those emissions may matter much more than our small share alone would suggest. If we were to pioneer technologies or lifestyles that are globally scalable and attractive to others (ranging from advanced reactors that can recycle our nuclear waste to bicycle-friendly city planning), then we could have a disproportionate effect on global emissions. On the other hand, doing what feels good for the climate may not always be good for the climate. If we expend scarce political capital on non-scalable or environmentally harmful solutions (such as wind energy sprawl in sensitive mountain areas), then we may perhaps look good in our own eyes but do little to rein in global emissions.
So, how
about that flight to Umeå? Biofuels are clearly neither scalable nor
environmentally sensible as a general solution to aviation. So why pay extra
for them? Because, by buying biofuels, one is sending a signal to the airline
that someone actually cares, that people are willing to pay to reduce their
climate impact, and that signal may ultimately help the airline explore other
forms of sustainable aviation fuel. So, between doing nothing and sending that
signal, I have decided that signalling is better.
Finally, even the underlying choice between flying and taking the train to Umeå is not quite as straightforward as it may seem from a climate standpoint. For long-distance travel, the climate arithmetic becomes more complicated once infrastructure and opportunity costs are included: scarce railway capacity may be better used for shifting heavy freight from road to rail, while new high-speed lines require enormous quantities of concrete and steel and may take decades to repay their initial carbon debt. Meanwhile, aviation requires remarkably little infrastructure between its points of departure and arrival.
Labels: aviation, research, running
