A climate scientist on Wednesday said he was being threatened with the sack for refusing to fly back to Germany from a research trip in Papua New Guinea.
Gianluca Grimalda, a senior researcher at the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), has spent six months investigating the social effects of climate change in the Pacific island country.
Grimalda made most of the outward trip to Papua New Guinea by land and sea, taking 35 days to travel around 16,000 kilometers.
He wished to return entirely by cargo ships, ferries, trains and buses, he said in a statement shared by the campaign group Scientist Rebellion.
But the IfW Kiel is allegedly insisting approval for his trip ran out on September 10 and he must return immediately by plane.
I don’t think flying is the root of the problem.
But the IfW Kiel is allegedly insisting approval for his trip ran out on September 10 and he must return immediately by plane.
He should have been back weeks ago. They want him back quickly, not over a month from now. He’s already proven himself to be unreliable and unprofessional, so I’m not surprised the institute isn’t being more flexible than they already have been. He could have avoided flying by planning ahead. Jobs come with responsibilities.
He’s already been given several weeks of leeway, which is a LOT more than most of us could expect from our employers.
Feels less like he’s being threatened because of his stance on flying, and more like because he’s already been out there a month longer than he was supposed to be, time he could’ve used to travel back more environmentally friendly, and they want him back now.
The extension was due to security threats, which presumably relate to travel options.
Well tough balls. If You wanted to have a person back sooner, they should have recalled them sooner. Seems like a mess of a scheduling and I’m not informed enough to make any conclusions. All I can say I have travelled in cargo ships, and I loved it!
I know flights emit a lot, but surely the emissions related to sustaining a man for 35 days (food preparation and shipment, water purification, living space cleaning and powering) outweigh that?
A person eats and drinks every day, regardless of being on a journey, or stationary. If he sourced locally along the trip, there’s a good chance his emissions were lower, since Germany has higher per capita emissions than most countries, roughly estimated.
But even if he brought all the supplies from Germany, that would only increase transportation emissions slightly. Emissions for the goods themselves remained equal, wether they are consumed at home or elsewhere.
Probably not no, flying really does emit a shit ton
I get where he’s coming from but that plane is going to fly it’s route whether he’s on it or not.
I think it’s mainly two reasons: Consciousness, and trying to make the world a better place.
People similarly refuse to participate in other things which are done anyways. Think about veggies, Nestle, refusing to work in certain industries or for certain employers, reddit blackout, fair trade products.
People abstain from what they deem wrong to have no part in it. And to use the power they have to not support what they deem wrong, maybe even shed light on it and inspire others.
When enough people do the same, it absolutely can have real world consequences. Change has to start somewhere.
I also refuse to fly, but my commute isn’t 16000km either.
Very good points and well written.
That may be true for one particular flight but if all the people who fly only because “the plane is going anyway” stopped, I’m sure that would partially empty those planes enough that airlines would consider reducing the flights’ frequency. But if anyone knows studies/arguments implying the opposite, I’d be very interested to hear them.