Nikki Keddie & Joyce Appleby: Historians say academics wanting to take global warming seriously should cut back on travel
[Joyce Appleby and Nikki Keddie are emerita professors of history at the University of California at Los Angeles.]
The World War II slogan, “Is this trip necessary?,”, should be revived for all Americans now that we know the disastrous effects of air travel on global warming. Just as patriotic Americans then cut back on unnecessary trips, so should we now limit ours.
Such a commitment should come from nearly all organizations and individuals, but would be especially appropriate for American colleges and universities because they have produced much of the research demonstrating the threat posed by global warming. Yet colleges and universities contribute significantly to the burden of travel with their conference-going, yearly recruitment, and fund-raising activities.
Of course, other professions and individuals contribute to the problem, but we’ll concentrate on our own institutions, colleges and universities. Some have cut back on power use, but they have not acted on the larger question of subsidized travel for administrators and faculty members....
Visiting lecturers, conferences, recruitment, and fund-raising may seem like the elixir of scholarly life, but with a little imagination university travel could be cut by a third or more. The Web offers a wonderful alternative to face-to-face conferences. Papers and comments could be easily posted with questions and answer covered in text-messaging. Individual lectures could be beamed from home campuses to auditoriums across the country. Participants could instantly send in questions. Other meetings could use teleconferencing.
The switch would not be hard. These are all means of communicating that the graduate students moving on to faculties are most familiar with. Universities could transfer money now used for travel to set up the equipment and instructions for these new programs. Some of the financial and career rewards given to faculty and administrators who amass travel invitations could be transferred to those who innovate to tackle global warming.
We are not suggesting a moratorium on necessary travel. Such travel includes trips to archives and on-site problems, travel to interview or observe individuals and groups being researched, or to confer with scientists in a given field of current research. Having a limited number of conferences and talks contributes to knowledge, and some job interviews are necessary. Our point is that there are far too many of these and that they continue to increase. They could be significantly reduced without loss and with some gain to the basic instructional purpose of colleges and universities. This would take serious commitment and new policies at all levels — administration, faculty, and student.
We look to universities for intellectual and moral leadership. Here’s a great way to keep up that reputation.
Read entire article at Nikki Keddie & Joyce Appleby at the website of Inside Higher Ed
The World War II slogan, “Is this trip necessary?,”, should be revived for all Americans now that we know the disastrous effects of air travel on global warming. Just as patriotic Americans then cut back on unnecessary trips, so should we now limit ours.
Such a commitment should come from nearly all organizations and individuals, but would be especially appropriate for American colleges and universities because they have produced much of the research demonstrating the threat posed by global warming. Yet colleges and universities contribute significantly to the burden of travel with their conference-going, yearly recruitment, and fund-raising activities.
Of course, other professions and individuals contribute to the problem, but we’ll concentrate on our own institutions, colleges and universities. Some have cut back on power use, but they have not acted on the larger question of subsidized travel for administrators and faculty members....
Visiting lecturers, conferences, recruitment, and fund-raising may seem like the elixir of scholarly life, but with a little imagination university travel could be cut by a third or more. The Web offers a wonderful alternative to face-to-face conferences. Papers and comments could be easily posted with questions and answer covered in text-messaging. Individual lectures could be beamed from home campuses to auditoriums across the country. Participants could instantly send in questions. Other meetings could use teleconferencing.
The switch would not be hard. These are all means of communicating that the graduate students moving on to faculties are most familiar with. Universities could transfer money now used for travel to set up the equipment and instructions for these new programs. Some of the financial and career rewards given to faculty and administrators who amass travel invitations could be transferred to those who innovate to tackle global warming.
We are not suggesting a moratorium on necessary travel. Such travel includes trips to archives and on-site problems, travel to interview or observe individuals and groups being researched, or to confer with scientists in a given field of current research. Having a limited number of conferences and talks contributes to knowledge, and some job interviews are necessary. Our point is that there are far too many of these and that they continue to increase. They could be significantly reduced without loss and with some gain to the basic instructional purpose of colleges and universities. This would take serious commitment and new policies at all levels — administration, faculty, and student.
We look to universities for intellectual and moral leadership. Here’s a great way to keep up that reputation.