Opinion A climate researcher loses his job because he refused to take a flight. Does it make a difference?

Ever since the enormity of climate change dawned on the world, it has been apparent that leading a low-carbon lifestyle holds the key to resolving the crisis. That’s easier said than done. Though using the AC a little less or eating millet instead of steak does help, walking the climate talk involves much more than personal choices. The pace of lives today is overdetermined by fossil fuel-based energy systems and even climate advocacy outfits cannot risk falling off the grid. Research often involves traveling great distances and most campaigners do not have the luxury of opting for a slower commute. This predicament often breeds conflicts like the one last week, between climate researcher Gianluca Grimalda and his employer, the Kiel Institute for Worldwide Economy (IfW) in Germany.

Grimalda has avoided flying after pledging to reduce his GHG footprint 10 years ago. Since March, he has been researching the impacts of climate change in Papua New Guinea. He had reportedly taken a 35-day, 15,000-km overland journey, travelling through Iran, India and Thailand, to reach the southwest Pacific. In the past, IfW supported its employee. But his latest project has been a difficult one for Grimalda, who has defaulted on deadlines. His bosses asked him to return by early October. Grimalda calculated that a flight from Papua New Guinea to Germany would mean a carbon footprint 12 times more than the slow travel option. He paid for his choice with his job.

Advertisement

The conscientious activist and the constrained employer/society need not always be in conflict. Much depends on how people see themselves. A consumer clothes actions, including climate-friendly ones, as personal choices. A citizen, in contrast, recognises that changes at the breakfast table, or those involving travel decisions, are potent only when they feed into collective action — something climate change has sorely lacked.