----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 9:01
AM
Subject: Carbon-neutral conferencing and
the ECS
Dear ECSers,
I raised the issue at the recent AGM in La
Rochelle of whether the ECS should move to make its conferences more
environmentally-friendly in the future and the committee asked whether I could
provide some further information on the concept of making conferences
carbon-neutral. To put my point of view in a nut shell, we as scientists
that work in the marine environment have a duty to limit our impact upon it
wherever possible. One of the greatest threats to cetaceans, other marine
life and indeed much other life on the planet is climate change associated
with global warming. This is not a theoretical threat for the future,
but is something that we are already starting to see the effects
of around Europe now.
Therefore, I feel that the ECS should do as much
as possible to ensure that it is not contributing to this problem for
cetaceans. As a group, the greatest single event run by the ECS that I
would think contributes to most to global warming (through carbon dioxide
production) is the annual conference (people flying in from all over the
world, electricity used, etc). Therefore, I would like to propose that
the ECS should aim to make its future annual conferences carbon-neutral
events (i.e. there is no net addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from
all activities associated with holding the event). This would probably
result in an increase in cost, but it should not be a large increase and any
additional costs would be more than paid back in terms of the reduction
in harm to the environment and the well-being of cetaceans (and other marine
life) around Europe and beyond.
I realise that many people will not necessarily
be familiar with the concept of a carbon-neutral conference and have taken the
liberty of providing some additional information below. It's not that
hard to do and would just be another aspect of organising a conference if it
can be integrated into the normal planning proceedures.
Does anyone else have any thoughts or
comments on this issue?
All the best,
Colin
Carbon neutral conferencing is not a substitute for greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions reduction. However, it allows conference organizers to reduce
emissions from travel and accommodation activities where possible, and to
offset any emissions that cannot be reduced through other means. Holding a
carbon neutral conference involves four key steps:
- Apply a “green meeting” strategy to minimize the meeting's overall
environmental impacts
- Estimate conference emissions based on delegates' travel and
accommodation choices
- Offset remaining emissions by purchasing verified carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2e ) credits
- Retire CO2e credits through the Canadian GHG Credit
Registry© of the Canadian Standards Association, Climate Change, GHG
Registries.
Carbon neutral conferences highlight organizational leadership in GHG
emission reduction and offsetting. They also help to educate, influence and
engage an organization's contact audiences. The process of hosting carbon
neutral conferences can help organizations understand more about their
operational greenhouse gas emissions, and how to deal with them.
The Federal House in Order Office has developed a comprehensive Guide to
Carbon Neutral Conferencing, as well as a concise one-page overview.
 |
 |
Nature
Published online:
17 November 2004; | doi:10.1038/432257a
Clean, green conferencing
Big
conferences are good for science. But because many
researchers fly in, these events are also bad for the
environment. What can be done to redress the
balance?
Consider this contradiction. Compared with most
other professions, scientists are probably better informed
and more concerned about climate change. Yet they also fly
more than most, generating significant greenhouse-gas
emissions. Last month, for example, 31,000 neuroscientists
descended upon San Diego for their annual meeting. Even many
of those based in the United States flew in.
Researchers should consider what to do about this,
because politicians are unlikely to take any action. In
countries that have signed the Kyoto Protocol, companies are
starting to cut emissions through carbon-trading schemes.
But airlines will not join the party, because aviation
exhaust gases will lie outside the Kyoto Protocol until at
least 2012. That's a problem: the sector generates 3.5% of
global emissions, and its contribution is expected to double
in the next 15 years.
What should scientists do? Some
advice is as well worn as it is tough to take: think about
going by train, bike or camel, or whether to go at all.
These are not palatable ideas. Conferences are often too
distant to reach, except by plane, but good science depends
on the exchange of ideas. Nonetheless, it would be worth
research groups considering whether they can send fewer
members to conferences, and whether more distant and less
important meetings can be missed altogether.
One
alternative to missing events is to tot up the total
emissions incurred by a flight, and invest in small-scale
projects to cancel out the emissions. This could involve
cutting carbon from other sources, by paying for solar
panels, for example, or giving villagers in the developing
world stoves that burn more cleanly. The web is teeming with
companies that will calculate your next trip's emissions,
work out how much it will cost to cut these emissions from
other sources (see News Feature, page 268) and invest that amount in
selected projects. Bingo — clean, green
conferencing.
Some research organizations, such
as the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in
Norwich, UK, already do this on a routine basis without
incurring significant costs. Other institutes should
consider following suit. Alternatively,
academic societies might choose to add the costs to the
meeting fees.
But before doing
so, take a good look at the companies that offer to do this
'carbon offsetting'. The problem is verification. Under
Kyoto, companies can invest in well regulated mitigation
projects, such as schemes to collect methane from landfill
sites. Until offsetting projects are regulated in the same
way, there is no guarantee that the firms involved have done
their homework. Many offer to plant trees, for example, but
forestry is not an accepted emissions-management strategy
under Kyoto, partly because it offers no long-term guarantee
of soaking up carbon. Trees can be cut down or burnt,
especially if local people need them for fuel or economic
gain.
To avoid such pitfalls, ask
offsetting companies a few questions before investing. How
transparent are they? Do they, for example, ask independent
scientists to scrutinize their projects? And do they take a
truly international outlook? There is little point in
restricting investment to schemes in one particular country,
as some companies do. Before you invite your colleagues to
jet over to your own carbon-neutral conference, make sure
that it actually
is. | | |
==================================================
Colin D. MacLeod,
M.Sc., B.Sc
School of Biological Sciences (Zoology),
University of
Aberdeen,
Tillydrone Avenue,
Aberdeen,
AB24 2TZ,
UK
Tel: 01224 272648
Fax: 01224
272396
