Jetsetting towards disaster

I'm a bit torn. I know that face-to-face interaction is so much more effective than Skype/video conf etc., and yet I'm very concerned about the adverse environmental effects of business travel.

Earlier today I saw a post by a contact of a contact here on LinkedIn. I'm not commenting directly on that post because I don't know the guy and I don't want to appear like a sanctimonious twat. In a nutshell, he'd posted a photo of 37 different passports belonging to attendees of the conference he was at, illustrating its global reach.

People will see different things from that image. Some will see impressive collaboration on a technical level (it was a cybersecurity conference), some will see a positive human side - so many cultures and languages meeting, some will celebrate the idea that the world as a whole is taking the problem of cybercrime seriously, etc. etc. I saw a ton (a metaphorical ton - the real volume is much worse) of greenhouse gas emissions required to get everyone there. That illustrates what a miserable sod I am.

Some basic calculations revealed that the air travel for everyone to attend, based on their passports and the location of the conference, would have produced at least 32 tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions. And that's assuming just one person from each country and that they all flew economy class (for business class, multiply by a factor of 3).

Comparisons can be specious, of course, but that's the equivalent of me driving my car around for over 50 years (at my current mileage). Or a year of 320 cattle going about their business. Or producing the electricity for my home for 35 years or so. I can provide the figures I've used to come to these comparisons, if anyone's interested.

This is all for one conference. I'm guessing that it wasn't the only one going on in the world at the time, and I'm also guessing that it's not the only one most of those delegates will be attending this year.

I know we're not going to abolish travelling by jet aircraft. Even the most ardent environmentalist probably doesn't believe that. But while we're a community that glamourises business travel, this sort of thing isn't going to get any better.

I also don't want to preach, but the message, despite coming from pretty serious sources, doesn't appear to be getting through: carbon emissions globally need to be significantly reduced, and that needs to happen now. Not next year, or after we retire, but now. That means you have to do it. Not someone else, not your company, not your government, but you. Or are we going to wait until something catastrophic and probably irreversible happens before changing our habits?

Yes, air travel is only a part of it, and there are so many other contributors, but think before booking a flight to a conference or for a meeting. Is it really necessary? Is the trade-off worth it? The downside is a hell of a prospect, so the conference would have to be pretty amazing... I personally have not booked trips to Canada and Poland in the last couple of months - trips that I previously would have undertaken without thinking. Alright, it hardly makes me David bloody Attenborough but it's indicative of the way I'm thinking about my footprint. That change in approach is taking hold in my life in many other ways also. It has to.

And please don't think that it's OK to contribute to some kind of carbon offset programme so your emissions/conscience are neutralised. Don't get on the flight, and then contribute the money you would have spent on the ticket to a carbon-offsetting scheme ALSO - that way we get double the benefit. It's that sort of thing that's required if we're to meet the targets.