It is worth considering that airlines can and do add additional flights to meet unusual demand. For example, for the recent Super Bowl in Minneapolis airlines added 3,500 extra flights to Minneapolis and other airports within the region. (http://kstp.com/news/federal-aviation-administration-explains-how-it-will-handle-influx-air-traffic-msp-and-regional-feeder-airports/4763229/). It seems to me a reasonable assumption that large conferences are also accommodated by adding extra flights. Further, I think the conference industry (both profit and not-for-profit) should be viewed collectively. Large conference centers must be well-utilized to make economic sense. That they are well-utilized is a rough indicator that a lot of traveling is going on, to provide the attendees that support them. How many scheduled flights does this add (directly or indirectly), all together, in large cities where conferences are held? I have no answers to these questions, but together they are another way to frame the concerns raised by Dr. Hickel. I think the AAA can serve a valuable ethical and leadership role toward rolling-back the profligate air travel our society – academic and otherwise – has been increasingly engaged in since the 1960s.

As we continue into a less climactically stable future, one way to frame this convo is in terms of bolstering resiliency. The current model of centralized, yearly conferences is premised on assumptions (namely, reasonably affordable air fares, available institutional funding, safe travel conditions, etc) that may change as we enter into a world of increased scarcity and instability. These changes will be patchy, and will likely hit those who are already on the margins of the academy first and hardest. It would be a good idea if the AAA began experimenting with alternatives not just b/c of the code of ethics, but as a way to ensure that the long-term viability and meaningfulness of the organization are positioned for what the coming decades will bring. Changes are inevitable, but by starting the process sooner rather than later, there is an opportunity to be prepared for them.

What this looks like should be decided collectively and with extra consideration given to Savannah’s point (“how about y’all figure out those supportive solutions before screwing over marginalized scholars”). Restructuring the conference model could and should be an opportunity to address more than one issue, including carbon ethics, marignalization within the academy, ADA/disability concerns (highlighted in another recentish blog post). (BTW, I am not a member of the AAA, just a former anthro undergrad who reads this blog from time to time. So disclaimer, I have no idea what restructuring could/would look like at the institutional level, or what those conversations would look like.)

To the comments regarding the impact of such actions (Karl and Barbara’s), two things stood out. First, the original post wasn’t so much about quantitative impact but instead was about whether or not flying to conferences was aligned with AAA’s code of ethics. Whether or not an anthropologist conducts fieldwork in such a way that minimizes harm to those with whom they are working has little bearing on the 7.6 billion people in the world in the same way that flying or not flying to the annual conference has little bearing on global aviation emissions. However, we wouldn’t justify inflicting ethnographic harm on a few people by arguing that they are .000000000x% of the world’s population, or by stating that other industries create much more harm. And this is assuming that such practices occur in a vacuum: anthropology’s colonial legacies show that ethical considerations do have far-reaching and potential unforeseen consequences, for good or bad. Similarly, reducing aviation emissions for business can be seen as having a ripple effect. If the AAA is able to come up with a framework for these emissions reductions that includes increased equity and inclusiveness, it, or some sort of process/consideration guidelines, would serve as a model for other organizations looking to make similar transitions.

Then how about y’all figure out those supportive solutions before screwing over marginalized scholars? I’ve been arguing that we should not be an afterthought in this matter, though we clearly are to both you and Parke, as neither of you considered the ramifications of your suggestions for us until after making your case for taking away one of our already scarce professional resources. It’s easy for you to give up something like this when you have so many other resources and systems of support already in place to ensure your academic and professional success. Your suggestion doesn’t impact everyone equally, and if you are really as concerned with the well-being of your fellow humans as you present yourselves to be, you won’t be ok with that.

Hi, Savannah,
Among the points I was trying to make is that, if we accept what climate science shows–at least as reflected in the Paris accords–that the wealthy parts of the world achieve zero net emissions by 2035–there is simply no room in the global carbon budget for academic conferences that involve thousands of people flying to them. If you or anyone else can show otherwise, I’m “all ears.”
As for meeting the needs of scholars on the margins, there are are many ways for us to realize them that don’t involve high levels of fossil fuel consumption. Finding and instituting those ways needs to be a focus of our efforts as part of the fight against climate change and for climate justice.

Finally, and if I may, I find myself sounding like a shill for Big Oil, but that is neither my intention nor my science and politics — if eliminating academic conferences will produce a measurable decline in greenhouse gas production, I’ll sign on to that strategy immediately. I’d just like more evidence of the effectiveness of such a strategy, especially considering the professional costs.

Personally , I put no emphasis whatsoever on my work as being important (though I do believe that some of the work of anthropologists can be considered important, else why bother at all). I also never claimed that any portion of the ecological footprint we’ve been discussing is “irrelevant”. I’ve already acknowledged that even a small reduction is a step in the right direction, but I’m also simply curious to know what the impact would be. To that end, what I did ask was whether there was any attempt to quantify that footprint in terms of the overall global footprint. The implication of the OP was that reducing our footprint would at least be the ethical thing to do, and that may indeed be the case, but where’s the harm in quantifying that reduction? Is that unreasonable? But if nobody else will do it…
According to data.worldbank.org annual travel by air amounts to approximately 3,700,000,000 miles traveled. AAA membership is about 10,000, but about 6,000 attending the annual meeting. Let’s say they each fly an average of 2,000 miles (no idea if this is reasonable, generous, or conservative) to attend a meeting, for a total of 12,000,000 miles. This would mean that if they didn’t attend, they’d reduce the miles traveled for that year by a little less than 1/3% (assuming the rough math is reasonable). Hopefully this helps.

One way to get an idea of what might happen is to look at what occurred after 9-11. In roughly the two years that followed, demand for seats on commercial aircraft dropped significantly. Airlines responded in various ways, one of which was to reduce the number of flights. See, for example, link

See also: pdf

Joe, I’m not sure what you mean by “I strongly support calls for inclusivity and equity, but the related efforts can’t be limited to academia…” in this context. The argument made in this article is for reducing carbon emissions by limiting or eliminating the annual conference, which is strictly related to academia, and our field specifically. So yes, inclusivity and equity should be considered everywhere, even outside of academia, but my argument regarding the conference is that we must ensure inclusivity and equity in our proposed contribution to the fight against climate change. By this I mean that we ought not eliminate or severely restrict the annual conference because it is not an inclusive or equitable solution for marginalized scholars. There are other ways that we might limit our carbon footprint as anthropologists and academics, and we should consider those before we consider doing away with one of the few opportunities for networking, professional development, and mentorship available to those of us who in the field who are less privileged. What you seem to be arguing for is that we ignore the needs of marginalized academics in favor of being inclusive of the entire rest of the world? That argument sounds to me exactly like the one originally made in this blog post–which didn’t consider the needs of those of us in the margins of anthropology. It’s easy to sacrifice the conference for “the greater good” if you aren’t the one doing the majority of the sacrificing.