the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 27 Jun 2025
Quantifying the carbon footprint of conference travel: the case of NMR meetings
Abstract. Conference travel contributes to the climate footprint of academic research. Here, we provide a quantitative estimate of the carbon emissions associated with conference attendance by analyzing travel data from participants of ten international conferences in the field of magnetic resonance, namely EUROMAR, ENC and ICMRBS. We find that attending a EUROMAR conference produces on average approximately 1 ton CO2eq. For the analysed conferences outside Europe the corresponding value is about 2–3 times higher. We compare these conference-related emissions to other activities associated to research, and show that conference travel is a substantial portion of the total climate footprint of a researcher in magnetic resonance. We explore several strategies to reduce these emissions, including the impact of selecting conference venues more strategically and the possibility of decentralized conferences. Through a detailed comparison of train versus air travel — accounting for both direct and infrastructure-related emissions — we demonstrate that train travel offers considerable carbon savings. This data may provide a basis for strategic choices of future conferences in the field and for individuals deciding on their conference attendance.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Magnetic Resonance.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.- Preprint
(2671 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(187 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CC1: 'Comment on mr-2025-9', Peter Lundberg, 28 Jun 2025
Great work, many thanks for the efforts. Distributed conferences seems to be the easiest and quickest solution. But how can it be set up most efficiently?
73, Peter
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/mr-2025-9-CC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on mr-2025-9', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Jul 2025
mr-2025-9
Magnetic Resonance review
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper in advance of the conference discussions to follow. I think that this is an important paper that addresses a critically important aspect of academic practices – our long standing and high carbon (in person) academic conference convention. This is a paper that addresses conference carbon measurement which has been attempted in various previously published academic papers, perhaps most notably the detailed analysis of the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) — the world’s largest Earth- and space-science conference — held in San Francisco, California, last December presented by Klöwer et al (2020). They calculated that its 28,000 delegates travelled 285 million kilometres there and back — almost twice the distance between Earth and the Sun.
The novelty in this paper arises from the comparison of travel emissions arising from multiple conferences across time which is very creditworthy. I am pleased that Lee (2021) is used to guide estimates of aviation emissions with consideration given to direct and indirect emissions as well as key factors such as distance (short haul and long haul). I did wonder why 800km was used as the threshold between surface and air travel modes. It is noted that this distance is arbitrary and that it is too high. Klöwer et al (2020) used 400km which is much more realistic. Few will drive or train further than 400km. This figure should be used for consistency with previous studies.
Comparing conference travel emissions with ‘daily research’ emissions is also novel and the authors are to be appalled for this too. Sustainability data is derived from one institute in Austria which of course will not be representative. This is acknowledged but is also a limitation. Some consideration is given to factors such as use of renewable energy and field of research. The paper organised sequentially in accordance with a multi-step research approach and notes repeatedly the limitations of the study at each step.
I was pleased to see that strategies for reducing conference emissions were addressed in the latter part of the paper. Transport mode, conference location, conference hubs, online only, less frequent conferences and local meetings are all mentioned as possibilities. Some consideration is given to questions of equity particularly regarding career stage (eg early career status). What is missing – and I do think that this is a missed opportunity given the conference discussions that are looming – is acknowledgement of previous research that has addressed alternative conference models and the need for multiple actors to collectively commit to transitioning to a low carbon academic conference convention. Klöwer’s (2020) modelling of different conference models including the three hub model that is developed in this paper feels like a glaring omission. The extent to which de-centralised conferences can reduce emissions should be noted, as this should be a critical focus of discussion and debate at your looming conference.
Klöwer et al’s (2020) paper published in Nature in July 2020 really should be integrated into the current manuscript prior to publication as it has so much to offer in terms of conference emissions measurement, emissions modelling under different conference scenarios (and extent of emissions reductions under each), and discussion of pathways forward. Furthermore, in terms of questions of equity there is much qualitative research that informs institutional challenges (eg geographically distant institutions located in the global academic periphery) and barriers to change which again should usefully inform this manuscript and make it more relevant to an international/global readership. See references included at the end of this review as examples. In my view these insights and perspectives should be integrated into the paper prior to publication.
The merits of this manuscript are clear – novel analysis of a range of conferences hosted in different locations across multiple years provides valuable quantitative insights that should inform action to decarbonise academic conferences. Comparison with wider (day to day) academic activities is also novel. The weaknesses in this manuscript are (1) emissions measurement limitations leading to multiple underestimations and lack of recourse to methods used in previous research, and (2) lack of acknowledgement of previous research that addresses established academic conventions (both in Europe and globally) and barriers to transition. Addressing these weaknesses would greatly extend and add considerable value to the discussion of the quantitative analysis.
References:
Klöwer, M., Hopkins, D., Allen, M. & Higham, J.E.S (2020). Decarbonising conference travel after COVID-19. Nature 583: 356-360 (16 July 2020) https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02057-2
Supplementary Information: https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-020-02057-2/18168996
Higham, J.E.S., Hopkins, D. & Orchiston, C. (2019). The work-sociology of academic aeromobility at remote institutions: Networks, co-presence and proximity. Mobilities 14(5) October 2019 https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2019.1589727
Hopkins, D., Higham, J.E.S., Orchiston, C. & Duncan, T. (2019). The practice of academic mobilities: bodies, networks and institutional rhythms. The Geographical Journal https://doi.10.1111/geoj.12301
Cohen, S.A., Hanna, P., Higham, J.E.S., Hopkins, D. & Orchiston, C. (2019). Gender discourses in academic mobility.Gender, Work & Organization DOI: 10.1111/gwao.12413
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/mr-2025-9-RC1 -
CC2: 'Comment on mr-2025-9', remco sprangers, 01 Jul 2025
In my opinion, this is an excellent piece of work that addresses the important issue of how we can stop destroying our planet. As scientists, we know that CO2 emissions negatively impact the climate. However, it is disheartening that most people seem unwilling to change their habits to reduce their environmental impact. This not only harms the environment, but also undermines the credibility of scientists—another alarming recent development. This manuscript discusses how international meetings contribute to carbon emissions and will interest a wide audience, including people far beyond the MR field. I see no reason why the same findings would not apply to other science fields. This manuscript is an excellent starting point for discussing how we can change our behavior to be more sustainable. It provides a foundation for exploring ways to make our actions more environmentally friendly. The ideas for changing how we plan meetings are helpful and should be implemented. Nevertheless, this manuscript should also prompt us to reflect on our individual impact. Is really essential to attend every global conference in person? Is there significant added value in burning tons of fuel just to attend a faraway meeting? The manuscript correctly points out that there is little scientific benefit to attending more and more meetings. In some cases, I would thus argue that a trip should not be made. We should honestly question whether attending another meeting is scientifically justifiable or if we are doing so merely for personal enjoyment. I expect this work to stimulate a vibrant conversation about our travel habits, and I hope it results in positive changes for the planet.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/mr-2025-9-CC2 -
CC3: 'Comment on mr-2025-9', Tom Barbara, 01 Jul 2025
It is true that all this air travel is a significant contributor to the generation of more and more CO2. It is a small fraction compared to the general mass vacation practices of the population, but perhaps worthy of having it reduced. My only regular conference attendance was the ENC at Asilomar and less so when it was on the east coast. The meeting would often feel rather stale and I would think to myself that it is always much more informative to read the literature! The talks were more in the style of an "infomercial". Of course, if you have friends, errr associates, then it is good to see them and if you are a vendor and are wooing customers, that is an even different story!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/mr-2025-9-CC3 -
EC1: 'Comment on mr-2025-9', Gottfried Otting, 04 Jul 2025
The article shows that the environmental impact of NMR conferences can be quantified within reasonable margins of uncertainty. The quantitative comparison with the daily carbon footprint of an NMR lab provides a healthy reality check in a time when greenwashing is all the rage.
When imagining greener alternatives, it may be worth considering a more fundamental starting point: are large conferences still fit for purpose?
If the purpose is to disseminate the latest (‘cutting-edge’) innovations and ideas, conferences arguably have gone backwards. Blame the advent of mobile phones for making it risky to discuss unpublished ideas and show unpublished data. Regardless of the organizers’ wishes and demands, posters do get photographed and presentations recorded. When only publication-ready results are shown, why not read the published articles and preprints instead, as suggested by Tom Barbara?
If the purpose is to refresh personal contacts with colleagues and friends in a nice location with morning and afternoon tea, one might argue that conference participation is more like a holiday during working hours (bonus: tax deductable) than a serious effort in advancing scientific research. Does this deserve support by the funding agencies and tax payer?
If the purpose is to demonstrate peer-recognition to funding bodies and universities by listing as many invites for oral presentations in a CV as possible, this metric most unfairly disadvantages caregivers (where female colleagues are overrepresented).
If the purpose is for companies to advertise their wares, they get much more attention by inviting customers to their home base.
If the purpose is to be seen and establish new contacts and collaborations (especially important for young and aspiring academics), smaller meetings may very well achieve more than large conferences. Specifically, small workshops are excellent ways to get to know and trust each other.
Despite the disruption by Covid-19, the traditional conference format (talks, posters, dinner, touristic value) refuses to die. Is it because the membership of conference advisory boards tilts towards the ‘seasoned’? (Calculate the ratio of over 65-year-olds to under 40-year-olds and see whether it is above or below 1…)
The inspiring initiative of the Global NMR Online Conference shows that change is in the air that transcends the greenish alternative of less-frequent in-person conferences in beige but centrally located hotels.
Whichever alternatives will eventually supersede large conferences, this article is a timely reminder that their quantitative impact on the environment must be kept in mind. To paraphrase Bill Clinton: it’s the quantity, stupid.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/mr-2025-9-EC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on mr-2025-9', Sebastian Jäckle, 05 Jul 2025
I am very happy to review this manuscript, as I consider the topic to be highly relevant. However, unlike a traditional review, I will not focus exclusively on the methodology and the results presented. Instead, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage the authors to think one step further and address the systemic problems that, in my view, stand in the way of a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions at conferences. As I will explain, this is certainly not a pleasant task, as it requires us to leave the comfort zone in which we are accustomed to conducting scientific research. Nevertheless, I consider it absolutely essential to discuss these issues within the individual scientific communities.
The authors examine the carbon footprint of scientific conferences in the field of magnetic resonance research. With regard to the relevance of their paper, they argue that it is always necessary to have good data on which to base the best decisions - in this case, which measures are appropriate for reasons of effectiveness and efficiency in order to reduce the carbon footprint - because, from a rational perspective, it makes sense to make savings where this is particularly cost-effective and has the greatest possible impact. However, the authors' background in natural sciences is undoubtedly evident at this point. From the level of individual people and their ability to reduce CO2 emissions to the global level (climate conferences), it is becoming increasingly clear that it is not so much the lack of a sufficient, systematic database on the extent of CO2 emissions and their causes that is hindering the implementation of concrete measures to reduce CO2, but rather psychological (denial of the danger), political and economic (short-term election cycles and satisfying shareholders in the short term instead of long-term planning) and, in some cases, ideological factors (conspiracy theories can only be combated to a limited extent with rational scientific arguments) that are preventing a clear emission reduction measures. Broken down to the sub-area of scientific conferences, this means, for example, that the economic interests of scientific associations, which are often financed to a large extent by income from local conferences, or the tourist interests of participants (who, as scientists, often accept lower pay than in the private sector and see business trips to conferences in tourist destinations as at least partial compensation). I would like to emphasize that I consider it very important that analyses such as the present one are carried out in a wide range of disciplines, as this can also open the door to discussions on this topic in diverse scientific communities. At the same time, however, I believe that, given the availability of a whole series of similar analyses with broadly similar results, it is now necessary to go one step further and address the systematic obstacles that have so far largely prevented the implementation of the much-discussed CO2 reduction measures in the scientific conference business (especially increased online conferences, as these naturally offer by far the greatest potential for savings).
After these opening remarks I have some specific questions/comments for the authors, which will hopefully help to strengthen the manuscript.
In the introduction, the authors point out that air travel accounts for a significant proportion of total emissions because only a very small proportion of the world's population flies at all. Implicitly, the authors ultimately argue for a form of CO2 justice. I could imagine that it would make sense to make this argument explicit, e.g., in the direction of equal per capita shares (Baer et al., 2000; Davidson, 2021).
As far as I can see, the CO2 emission estimates are correct and easily traceable through the appendix. Since there are a number of possible variables in estimating emissions (e.g., RFI level, different emission factors for electricity production, etc.), it might be useful to present not only the estimated values in Figure 3, but also a range from a minimum to a maximum estimate.
I think it’s a very good idea to account for indirect emissions caused by the construction and maintenance of infrastructure, too! This distinguishes the paper from many others, which do not consider indirect emissions.
I very much like the comparison in Figure 4, which shows that a scientist's personal emissions from attending a single conference are similar to those from their normal day-to-day research activities for a whole year. Many researchers probably attend more than one conference a year. If it is known how often scientists in magnetic resonance travel to conferences on average per year, it would therefore make sense to also indicate the average CO2 emissions caused by the average number of conference visits per year.
Figure 5 also clearly shows that in some cases (particularly within France, with its high-speed rail network) it is actually faster to travel to a conference venue, thereby saving a significant amount of CO2. However, based on this data, a train journey from Paris to Oulu does not appear to be a very plausible option. To reduce travel-related conference emissions, it might therefore be useful to test (via a survey, see below) how much longer participants would be willing to travel by train rather than fly. In other words, it could make sense to use the factor represented by the size of the dots in the graph as the key variable when planning where to hold a conference.
In addition to the options for reducing emissions mentioned by the authors, hybrid conference models could also be used, in which, in the best case scenario, those who would otherwise have to travel very long distances by plane are connected online, while those who can travel relatively CO2-neutrally by train meet in person. Given the extremely uneven distribution of emissions due to the small number of participants who have to travel extremely long distances, this would lead to a significant reduction in emissions. At the same time, the conference experience for the majority of participants would not differ greatly from a traditional on-site-only conference.
The authors write: “In-person meetings have a quality that online conferences simply cannot provide. Many of us had brilliant ideas (or thought so at that time) while having a drink with a colleague after the poster session. It is not obvious how to generate these opportunities in an online setting.” While probably every researcher understands this reasoning, I would, at this point, like to touch on a sore point, because to me, this idea seems to be precisely the problem that stands in the way of an effective reduction in scientific CO2 emissions.
I would encourage the authors to really weigh up the undoubtedly positive aspects of on-site conferences against the emissions they generate, and to compare this with the far lower CO2 emissions of online conferences. According to my own calculations, European political science conferences generate at least 200 times more CO2 emissions than online conferences (Jäckle, 2021). Against this background, it must be asked whether an on-site conference really generates 200 times better output for the advancement of science than an online conference (because that should be the main criterion in the scientific field). The authors do explain this fact (even using the example of an astronomy conference where the savings from online conferences were estimated to be even greater, 3000x), but then they simply conclude that online conferences offer a very different experience from on-site conferences. This seems a little simplistic to me. Furthermore, online conferences may also offer a lot of positive effects which are often not discussed, (e.g. easier to attend for family care givers, cheaper to attend which increase the inclusion of young scholars and scientists from the global south). Discussing online conferences always only as suboptimal alternatives to in person conferences is thus in my view too short-sided.
The authors estimate a possible reduction of about ¼ of CO2 emissions by splitting the conference between two locations. This measure seems to me to be of little use when it comes to really reducing emissions substantially. I would generally like to see the authors systematically compare the savings potential of different options (and combinations thereof, e.g., acceptance of longer travel times by train + hybrid option) and then possibly make a clear recommendation for the magnetic resonance community.
“We assumed, somewhat arbitrarily, that distances shorter than 800 km are traveled by train, and that for longer distances the participants choose the plane.” (line 79). A better option might be to use the actual travel time needed as a tool for deciding on a transport option. For example, within France, the high-speed TGV rail network enables fast travel (e.g. from Lille to Toulouse, a distance of about 900 km by car, in 6 hours 40 minutes). In this case, travelling by rail is clearly an alternative to flying. In other countries, however, the same distance by train would take a whole day.
Furthermore, it probably makes not much sense to include train travel in the estimations for Boston, MA and Pacific Grove, CA, since it is unlikely that anyone travelled by train to these conferences. It would be much more realistic to assume car travel here.
“We assumed that the participant traveled from this city to the conference site.” (line 278). While this assumption is reasonable and is used as the basis for many similar analyses, a short online questionnaire asking conference participants how and from where they travelled to the venue could be used in future research. Such a questionnaire could be sent by the scientific conference organisers to increase response rates.
When calculating the direct emissions of railway travel, the authors base their estimations on Austrian data. However, the Austrian emission factors for the production of electric energy are probably not representative of the rest of Europe (they are much smaller due to the high amount of hydro energy). To get a more realistic estimate of the direct emissions from railway travel, country-specific emission factors for electricity production should be used. Alternatively, in countries where railways are not yet electrified (e.g. Great Britain), the emission factors for diesel locomotives should be used (e.g. Switzerland is almost 100% electrified, whereas in Ireland it is only 2.6%: https://www.statista.com/statistics/451522/share-of-the-rail-network-which-is-electrified-in-europe/).
Baer, P., Harte, J., Haya, B., Herzog, A.V., Holdren, J., Hultman, N.E., et al. (2000) Equity and Greenhouse Gas Responsibility. Science 289: 2287–2287.
Davidson, M.D. (2021) How Fairness Principles in the Climate Debate Relate to Theories of Distributive Justice. Sustainability 13: 7302.
Jäckle, S. (2021) Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Academic Conferences by Online Participation: The Case of the 2020 Virtual European Consortium for Political Research General Conference. PS: Political Science & Politics 54: 456–461.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/mr-2025-9-RC2 -
CC4: 'Comment on mr-2025-9', Gunnar Jeschke, 07 Jul 2025
Will things get better? Will they get worse? With every new year these questions arrive.
Let us agree not to fool ourselves: To live is always a danger to life.
I translated these lines by the German poet Erich Kästner to English, because I see them as a poignant commentary on the apocalyptic undertone of the climate debate. There is a distinct religious zeal in these discussions that, in my opinion, does not suit scientists so well. Yes, this planet is getting warmer. It thus gets closer to the optimal temperatures for biochemistry. This, by the way, is the reason why we can burn kerosine for air travel – it stems from a warm age of biomass overproduction that depleted earth’s atmosphere of carbon dioxide.
Yes, carbon dioxide emissions by humans play a role in global warming. Yes, some risks are associated with that. Some damage will occur. But is climate change mitigation free of risks and damages? Without quantitative assessment, it is impossible to decide on the best plan for action. Yet, many scientists refuse to even acknowledge that climate change mitigation has a downside, too.
I am writing this at the EUROMAR conference in Oulu. Going here and back by train, ferry, and buses would have taken an aggregate of four days. Counting in my salary, this would be rather expensive, even after deducting time that can be used for work during travelling.
What about skipping conferences? At EUROMAR, I drift into an off-work, dreamy-dizzy brain activity. Combined with seeing new concepts in talks or at posters and with the discussions during breaks, this reliably provides me with ideas beyond my current work. Some of my collaborations and scientific relationships started at conferences. Neither reading papers nor on-line conferences can replace this.
Yes, we could have less conferences and, in particular, less big conferences. I did travel by train from Zurich to the EUROMAR conferences in Nantes, Utrecht, and Berlin and I skipped Glasgow and Bilbao. Yet I hold that we do need some conferences as big as EUROMAR and that places such as Oulu should be permitted to host them.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/mr-2025-9-CC4 -
CC8: 'Reply on CC4', Paul Schanda, 20 Jul 2025
Dear Gunnar,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts—I appreciate your perspective.
I see two main lines of thought in your comment, and I’d like to address them separately. Let me begin by saying that debates around this topic often carry a moral undertone, which I explicitly wish to avoid. My own carbon footprint is certainly not aligned with the max.-1.5°C warming target, so my aim here is not to lecture. Rather, I believe this is a discussion worth having.
(1)
One of your points questions whether we are at all capable of predicting the future and, by extension, whether the damage caused by climate change outweighs the risks associated with mitigating it. You illustrate this point well with a quote from the youth author Erich Kästner.
I fully agree that a “religious zeal” in the discussion is unhelpful. Our exchange should be grounded in scientific reasoning and a careful assessment of risks—both those of continuing business as usual and those of transforming society in ways that would allow us to mitigate climate change.
Indeed, one of the challenges in climate science is that we cannot perform controlled experiments as we would when recording a PELDOR dataset or predicting rotamer distributions of spin labels. By its nature, climate science cannot test alternate historical pathways by going back 100 years and changing the “parameters.”
Your argument seems to be that, since we don’t know for sure what the future holds, everyone is free to believe what they want. The difficulty with this reasoning is that it disregards a substantial body of scientific evidence. I would gently suggest that the position that “we have no clue” doesn’t align well with how we, as scientists, generally approach uncertainty.
There is, in fact, a lot of data. The IPCC reports are a good starting point. They clearly indicate the confidence levelsassociated with various findings. For instance, they state with high confidence:
"Across sectors and regions the most vulnerable people and systems are observed to be disproportionately affected. The rise in weather and climate extremes has led to some irreversible impacts as natural and human systems are pushed beyond their ability to adapt.”
And with very high confidence:
"Global warming, reaching 1.5°C in the near-term, would cause unavoidable increases in multiple climate hazards and present multiple risks to ecosystems and humans.”
(see: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/)You might still question whether these statements are trustworthy. What would a scientist do then? A logical next step is to evaluate whether past climate model predictions have matched observed outcomes. There’s a growing body of meta-studies doing exactly that—and they show that many of the earlier predictions have been accurate, with some underestimating the actual changes, such as the frequency of extreme weather events or Arctic ice loss.
So while I agree with your point that this debate should be based on scientific facts rather than beliefs (“religious zeal,” as you put it), the scientific evidence is quite robust. Kästner’s quote, in this context, doesn’t seem to apply well. As scientists, we should aim for evidence-based reasoning over belief-based argumentation that "we don't know at all", which is what Kästner's quote implies.
You are of course right that rising temperatures bring the Earth closer to a range where some organisms thrive—"it thus gets closer to the optimal temperatures for biochemistry," as you put it. Indeed, there were periods in Earth's past, like the Pliocene and Eocene, where temperatures were similar to those we’re heading toward. (See Burke et al., PNAS2018, 115(52), 13288–13293: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1809600115, especially Figure 1.)
But from an anthropocentric viewpoint, the relevant question is not whether life on Earth is possible under such conditions—it clearly is—but whether human societies can function under them. The real issue is not the survival of the planet, but whether civilisation can withstand a +3 or +4°C increase. And again, scientific projections tell us—very confidently—that this would bring dramatic negative consequences for human systems.
(2)
The second, and very valid, point you raise concerns the “cost” of reducing emissions—the trade-offs and short-term losses involved in cutting fossil fuel use, or more broadly, reducing energy consumption. (And I fully agree: this includes not only fossil fuels but also the growing demand for minerals in an electricity-based economy, which has its own environmental impacts.)
The potential loss of quality of life is one of the central reasons why these changes are so hard to make. You mention the dreamy-dizzy state of mind one may experience at a conference. Many of us can relate. Others may find that same feeling while lying on a Caribbean beach—and who would deny anyone that right?
More generally and more modestly: many aspects of our everyday quality of life don’t align well with a low-energy lifestyle. So yes, you are absolutely right—there is not only a risk in climate change, but also a risk in making the kinds of changes needed to address it.
It’s true that most lifestyle adjustments—whether voluntary or policy-driven—can be perceived as limitations. Is it a restriction of our “freedom” if we consider ecological impact when deciding whether to buy a new car or attend an overseas conference? Certainly, it is.
But societies routinely limit individual freedoms for the collective good. Some people would enjoy driving at 200 km/h; others may feel safer carrying a firearm. Yet we broadly accept regulations that restrict such freedoms when there is strong statistical evidence that they reduce harm.
When it comes to carbon emissions — whose harmful effects on human society and ecosystems are supported with very high scientific confidence, too — our societies often struggle to impose similarly effective limits. This is certainly in part due to the less immediate (even though just as direct!) relationship of cause and consequence, and the "diluted" effect. But there is also a ideological pushback, as some even view efforts to reduce carbon emissions as steps toward an "ecological dictatorship.” Whether or not that concern is justified shall not be my point here, but we can start by reflecting on our own choices—as individuals or as a scientific community.
There are likely areas where lower-emission choices do not require a significant loss in quality of life: the carbon footprint of EUROMAR could be reduced by hundreds of tons simply by rethinking its location, frequency, or format. Of course, such changes come with a cost, e.g. on the diversity of locations. Whether we believe that this cost is justified—that it’s “worth it”—is precisely what this debate is about.
Since I’m convinced that data should guide this conversation, we hope that our analysis can help spark the discussion—and ideally, in a non-moralising and constructive manner.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/mr-2025-9-CC8
-
CC8: 'Reply on CC4', Paul Schanda, 20 Jul 2025
-
CC5: 'Comment on mr-2025-9', Tom Barbara, 15 Jul 2025
Just for those that may perhaps be interested "in the science", one person who has worked on the topic for many years is Richard Muller and one can read a nice overview of the first chapter of his book here: https://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html
Of course, the physics of green house gases is pretty well understood. And the measurements of CO2 are very accurate science. Scientists have remarked on the effects of combustion for along time now. Even my 1972 freshman chemistry textbook as a comment on it. I spent two years at UCSD where I learned about Roger Revelle and his work and of course that is where Mr. Gore learned of the topic.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/mr-2025-9-CC5 -
CC6: 'Reply on CC5', Peter Lundberg, 15 Jul 2025
The earliest account of CO2 and climate I am aware of is in a book by Svante Arrhenius (physical chemist, Nobel price in chemistry 1903). In 1896 he described the relation between CO2, average temperature of earth, and the consequences of burning fossil fuels. In my view his prediction was amazingly accurate.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/mr-2025-9-CC6 -
CC7: 'Reply on CC6', Tom Barbara, 15 Jul 2025
Thanks for mentioning Arrhenius. Even earlier still there is the work of Tyndall in 1859. And not long ago I read an article in "Physics Today" about Eunice Foote who published in 1857. Of course back then the isotopic chemistry was not advanced to supply the kind of data we can now get with ice cores and deep lake of sea bed sampling. The science is brilliant and many who have studied the data have posed the question that perhaps our release of CO2 will prevent the next ice age. It is questionable that modern civilization could survive the next ice age. They are long in duration compared to the inter-glacial warming periods.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/mr-2025-9-CC7
-
CC7: 'Reply on CC6', Tom Barbara, 15 Jul 2025
-
CC6: 'Reply on CC5', Peter Lundberg, 15 Jul 2025
-
EC2: 'Comment on mr-2025-9', Gottfried Otting, 21 Jul 2025
The debate does not have to be about sacrifice at all, because BETTER alternatives to traditional conferences are emerging.
Last week, Global NMR Discussion Meetings (https://www.globalnmr.org) conducted the fourth annual Online Conference. Triggered by this preprint and out of curiosity, I took part and found myself very positively surprised by how much better the experience was compared to poster sessions at traditional conferences (where, arguably, more fresh ideas spring up than in sessions with oral presentations). The conference offered
- Easy access to abstracts and 2-minute presentations
- Vibrant discussions over 3 days
- Zero registration fees
- No crowded and noisy poster session, no red wine stains
- No missing presenter at the one poster you really wanted to know more about
- Considered responses to considered questions, in public
- All while residing in my favourite armchair!
- Zero travel costs, zero jet lag, no lost luggage
- Moreover: presenters can choose to leave their presentations online and link to Bluesky, which can attract thousands of views
What a way to make the carbon-footprint issue obsolete!
Why not join next year and make the conference a success by turning it into an annual must-be-there-event?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/mr-2025-9-EC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on EC2', Paul Schanda, 21 Jul 2025
Thank you for this positive message. Indeed, this sounds like a very good way of communicating science.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/mr-2025-9-AC1
Supplement
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,066 | 208 | 52 | 1,326 | 24 | 8 | 8 |
- HTML: 1,066
- PDF: 208
- XML: 52
- Total: 1,326
- Supplement: 24
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1