Alternative futures for academic conferences: a response to Bonnett

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

In the context of the recently published Stern report (2006) and other studies setting out scenarios of climate change and necessary social and economic changes to lessen its impacts (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001; Monbiot 2006; Schellnhuber et al. 2006), this Commentary seeks to stimulate debate within the RGS-IBG on the sustainability of the Annual Conference and other meetings and activities of the Society. Indeed, this debate has already begun. In Area's September 2006 Editorial, Alastair Bonnett questions the sustainability of attendance at national and international conferences and meetings, especially when travelling by air (Bonnett 2006). He sets out the stark facts of the environmental impact of air travel it is the fastest growing contributor to carbon emissions, with passenger numbers and airport capacity set to expand rapidly, and CO2 has enhanced warming effects when emitted at high altitudes but the editorial ends with an unexplored plea for a 'shift in culture' (2006, 230) in academic research practices. This commentary agrees that there is a need for a change in our culture and practice of knowledge generation and dissemination to reduce the very real (and increasing) damage that our travel and conferences generate. Furthermore, it attempts to go beyond the rhetoric of change by setting out some alternative futures for the Annual Conference. Before being accused of seizing the green moral high ground, I am as deeply steeped in the prevail ing culture as any academic. Indeed, as my career has developed, I have found myself attending more conferences and travelling further. In July 2006, 1 attended a conference in Auckland, New Zealand (linked to the International Geographical Congress in Brisbane) and, in August, the RGS-IBG Annual Conference in London. Sitting in a seminar room at the Society on an intensely hot day, as overhead planes descended into Heathrow Airport, I began to think about the carbon emissions of this and the other conferences I attend. This Commentary is my attempt to understand this and, further, to think about how I can continue as an engaged critical geographer without contributing to long-term environmental and societal damage.' Geography as a discipline has a rich knowledge and insight into human-induced climate change, and arguably therefore an enhanced responsibility to take a lead in questioning our and others' practices and policies. Put another way, while I recognize the multitude of academic (and business) conferences that happen every year, this cannot be an excuse for geographical inaction (in the same way as using China's rising carbon contribution as a justification to delay Western reductions). Further, there is an increasing recognition within critical geography of the need to address our own position and activities within an increasingly neo-liberalized higher education 'economy', in this instance the emphasis on inter nationality and regular and rapid travel (Chatterton and Featherstone in press). More positively, this can be seen as an opportunity to illustrate geography's central importance in understanding and providing imaginative and critical responses to contemporary social and environmental problems, at a time when the subject's position in education and the public