Schroedinger‘s Erasmus: why I want everyone to travel and not to travel at the same time.

Erasmus, the environment and cognitive dissonance

#ErasmusGeneration, Greta Thunberg and the #GretaGeneration are casting a rightfully judgmental look at you!

A friend working in the field of international student mobility recently published and article (https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/can-me-make-erasmus-climate-friendly-camille-bullot) starting to touch upon the problem of Erasmus and its environmental cost.

The problem is larger than just the flights of current Erasmus students going to their exchange and back. There is a cognitive dissonance paradox that I’m sure is present in the mind of many of my friends who are both strong believers in the benefits of international student mobility, but also wannabe members of the #GretaGeneration who believe in the environmental crisis is the most pressing issue the world is facing. 

It for sure is very present in my mind.

I have to start by explaining some of my political beliefs (borderlining philosophical) beliefs before I can go further. You may say I’m an idealistic social equality dreamer (but I’m not the only oneee). 

I believe that every human being should be given the same opportunities in life. At least the same level that I’ve been given. Because, I’m part of the most privileged group of individuals in the history of mankind (white young male born and raised in an upper middle class rather intellectual family in a fairly strong welfare state democracy), I never had to struggle or even work my ass off for opportunities to come to me. Because I had access to free education, access to cultural activities and sport for a very cheap price, access to quality information, but also because I’ve always had a double safety net (welfare state + family), everything had been fairly easy in my life. 

Including international mobility. 

I traveled with my parents quite a lot, I was encouraged to travel the World, and I was given access to information about international learning mobility but also it also seems I knew how easily and effortlessly how to navigate the system and get the opportunities. In other words, when it comes to travelling, the concept of ‘getting out of my comfort’ zone has never spoken much to me, because I was given all the tools to expand my comfort zone from a very early age. 

So I took all these opportunities. Interrail for fun, Erasmus for studies, Erasmus again for internship, European Voluntary Service for volunteering, etc. This culminating in my current one-year travel around the world. 

And because, I’ve benefitted of all that without much efforts, I believe it should be the case for everyone. Given the very little efforts I had to make to benefit of these opportunities, there is absolutely no reason I can find nor any justification I could defend to say that I’m more worthy than any other young person in France, in Europe or in the World to enjoy what I’ve enjoyed. 

I’m not saying that everyone must go on long-term international mobility. I believe everyone should have the opportunity to. This means an easy access to information, to the financial and material means to undertake this experience, and the support to prepare the adventure. 

That’s of course why I’ve been engaged in youth NGO for a while and in particular in the Erasmus Student Network. 

Note that this perception is extended to pretty much all dimensions of life. I do believe in social equality, and real equal opportunities for access to education, health, cultural and physical activity, quality and diverse information, engagement and civic activism. 

But of course, I also believe in science. And science overwhelmingly tells us that we have an urgent critical problem. We are simply en route for a collapse of our societies due to a mix of factors mostly linked to our impact on the environment. 

And here lies the paradox. I recently completed a Environmental footprint test online (https://www.wwf.ch/fr/vie-durable/calculateur-d-empreinte-ecologique disclaimer: I didn’t check the methodology, for lack of time and lack of expertise.) According to that test, my lifestyle uses up 5.5 planets. The biggest impact is of course my overly frequent flights for business or leisure travels. (I didn’t check in detail but I think my meat consumption comes 2nd I think.) And yet, I wish everyone could have access to that lifestyle. 

You see the problem?

Supposedly, and with the methodological limitations that it implies, humanity used up 2 planets last year. If everyone was living like me, we’d be screwed at an even faster pace. More specifically, for the specific example of Erasmus it would mean a massive increase in air traffic due to Erasmus students. About 5% of the EU youth currently benefits of Erasmus in one form or the other. Reaching the EU goal of 20% mobility would already multiply by 4 the Erasmus related air-traffic.

The result of these thoughts is that I’m curled up in my bed every night, crying, unable to find sleep, thinking about this unsolvable paradox. 

Damn you, cognitive dissonance!

What to do?

Not cutting International youth and student learning mobility. I believe it is too important for the education of young people. But also to slowly create a general common consciousness of belonging to humankind and a consciousness of the challenges we must face together. I believe international youth mobility is one of the best tools available to create meaningful intercultural interaction between young people and to fight a culture that produces massive social loneliness and market-based human interaction as the main vector of interpersonal interaction.

I don’t believe we currently have a solution to solve this paradox. We can however offer some leads at different levels.

Proponents of sustainable growth, a more and more controversial concept, could advocate for massive investment in research and development and, further down the line, in new infrastructure in the field of super high speed trains and solar energy fuelled planes. These technologies are currently being designed but we are still a long way from a pan-European network of high speed trains or from the first even public solar energy fuelled flight. The level of investment needed goes far beyond what’s currently being put on the table by the EU or by any private investor. The need for public investment to kickstart these technologies is high. To some extend, policy proposals such as the Green New Deal are answering on the same line

At the European level, but also at all other political levels, there is of course a need for much longer term thinking. Large programmes should be environmentally future proof. A French Green activist-politician (he did a brief stunt as Environment Minister under Macron’s presidency) once formulated the idea of a “long-term commission” (Commission du temps long) in charge of providing an opinion and recommendations regarding the long-term environmental impact of all policy proposals in a 10, 20 or even 50 year perspective. This idea is probably not easy to implement and there are some obvious methodological obstacles to the assessment of each proposal but the idea itself if to be explored.

At the level of the Erasmus programme there might be some partial answers as well. As Camille’s article suggest, it would be easily feasible for the European Commission to encourage train travel for Erasmus students by granting travel reimbursement at a higher rate if train is chosen over plane. Another friend commented that the European Commission could probably go even further and decide to only finance train travels. (Thanks Oscar for this idea.)

Another idea proposed as a comment has to do with the fact that Erasmus students are more mobile than average and are likely to also fly during their stay for short trips around their host city. The now well-known Interrail system could design a new form of pass: an Erasmus-long pass allowing Erasmus students to travel to a certain number of destinations during their stay. This would simply require an adaptation from the current existing system and would surely be highly successful towards international students. (Thanks Wim for that input.) 

While we are on the Interrail topic, you might have heard about the new DiscoverEU programme. The EU is currently discussing the opportunity to invest about 700 million euros between 2021 and 2027 to simply distribute free Interrail passes to young Europeans. While I’ve already expressed some concerns regarding the idea (from the lack of education component to the fact that it was used by its initiator as a political campaign stunt), it could surely 1) increase the level of youth mobility and 2) make them more inclined to travel by train in general. 

Another very valid point is to encourage longer mobility experiences. Rather than flying every 3 or 6 months, for mid-term stays, fly only twice a year for a one year stay in another country. This could be encouraged by ensuring students deciding for a longer stay benefit of a higher rate of funding. This idea is limited by the accessibility of mobility factor: with the same funding, one person can be sent abroad for one year, but two could benefit of a six month stay. (Thanks Alexandre for the idea)

If Erasmus student are part of the global environmental problem for a short period of their life, let’s try to ensure they change their behavior afterwards. Mobility programmes should in all cases include a citizenship education dimension. Raising awareness about the environmental cost of mobility and in a wider perspective about the environmental crisis should of course be part of this citizenship education dimension. This would go further than the travelling issue. It should prepare Erasmus students to be future green citizens and professionals. (Thanks Maksim, Jirka and Oscar for the idea)

The initial article triggered a debate about wether addressing the flight issue was even a good idea. Air traffic CO2 emissions are about 2% of the global emissions (its global impact on environment is likely to be 2 to 4 times higher according to the Wikipedia related article) for about 4 billion passengers annually. Which means the one million-ish (high estimate) Erasmus-generated travels represent 0,025% of all air travel, and 0,0015% of the global impact on climate change (very VERY roughly calculated). But addressing the flying issue must start somewhere, and we should act specifically for every target group. 

Besides, actions for a greener Erasmus go further. It’s about educating a highly mobile generation about the impact of their life choices. Erasmus students are likely to travel more afterwards. Addressing their way of travelling as early as possible is a way to ensure it ensure they will be more likely to chose train over planes in the future.

The ideas laid out here are of course not comprehensive and for sure not enough to effectively offset the environmental cost of international student mobility if mobility becomes effectively more accessible to all young people. 

It is probably time to seriously open the Pandora Box of the environmental cost of mobility. Unfortunately, it is not the only one we should open. The whole Higher Education sector (https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20190503073108246&fbclid=IwAR3JwJzvomtncXnByOWh9JzHtepfXh62yZFpZ6AilN2sNxhWKs1-AzGd1KM) needs to engage in in depth reflection about the topic. 

My dad has encouraged me to write shorter articles because ?no one read articles that long.? So I’ll stop here. But I’m really tempted to start again the same line of argument with the sport sector. Has anyone reflected on the environmental cost of our sport activities? From the environmental cost of practicing a sport, to the travelling involved by competitions at all levels, to the mass of sport tourism for large event? I’m afraid the problem is even worse than for student mobility. 

Good luck. 

#Erasmus #StudentMobility #ClimateAction #GretaThunberg #HigherEducation