Academic conferences and climate justice: The CLEAT report

In times of climate emergency, air travel for conference attendance is neither sustainable nor ethical. As a 2020 article in Nature concluded, “[t]he sum total of travel associated with attendance at one large academic conference can release as much CO2 as an entire city in a week” (Klöwer, Hopkins, Allen, and Higham). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which produces regular summary reports about the newest climate science, by 2030 global carbon emissions must be reduced by 45% compared to 2010 levels in order to avoid irreversible tipping points. Since airline travel is generally the highest contributor to academia's carbon footprint (Thaller, Schreuer, and Posch), this is an all-hands-on-deck moment for scholars in all disciplines. Those of us in German studies have a particular responsibility: Although climate denial is unfortunately becoming more common in Germany today (see Stöcker), the country has long been considered a leader on climate action (Eckersley). Germanists are therefore well-positioned to assume a leading role in moving academia beyond the fossil fuel age.

This is very much a question of justice. The Paris Agreement's “common but differentiated responsibilities” require more aggressive decarbonization from countries that have historically emitted more (United Nations 1). Climate injustices are disproportionally perpetrated on women and other vulnerable populations, including young people and future generations. It would therefore behoove academics to adopt “common but differentiated responsibilities” as well. For senior scholars, who have not only contributed the most to the existing emissions, but are also typically flying more than their junior counterparts, reducing their carbon footprint becomes an act of climate justice. But real change cannot be left to individuals. It requires action on the part of academic associations and conference organizers.

There is no question that in-person meetings have benefits. Being in the same room together, getting to know one another beyond a limited one- or two-hour Zoom, shaking hands, or sharing a meal likely makes it easier to build strong relationships and nurture more resilient networks. It is certainly more fun. And yet, studies show that more flying does not equal higher productivity (Wynes, Donner, Tannason, and Nabors), which suggests that it must be possible to build successful networks right from where we are. Although some of us who have benefitted from in-person conferences for decades may feel provoked by the accusation that it is literally contributing to the destruction of a habitable planet, we should step into the shoes of our youngest colleagues and the generations to come who will have to live with the consequences of our emissions (see for example Neubauer and Repenning). Yes, younger colleagues benefit from engaging with more experienced scholars in person, but they are often also the most comfortable with new virtual and hybrid formats.

We have already taken steps at the German Studies Association (GSA): In May 2020, seven Germanists from different institutions in the United States who were concerned about the climate emergency submitted an open letter eventually signed by 199 GSA members (more than 10%) urging the GSA Executive Board to “implement measures to reduce our carbon footprint.” The GSA leadership responded promptly by constituting the Climate Emergency and Technology (CLEAT) committee, which produced the 14-page CLEAT report on May 17, 2021 (GSA Climate Emergency). The report recommends that the organization re-imagine the GSA in view of the climate emergency. With numerous innovative examples, links, and references to alternatives, the CLEAT report highlights exciting ways in which scholarly research can be conducted with a smaller carbon footprint, while also addressing related issues of equity and accessibility.

Initially, the report was met with a mixed response. Many rejected the recommendation to end the annual in-person conference; some even questioned the concept of a climate emergency. Others pointed out that conferences have long been a precious resource for scholarly collaboration and networking. Many viewed it as the only chance to get together and talk about our work—especially as German programs in North America are increasingly under threat.

The suggestion that faculty may need to reduce their air travel has met with resistance beyond German studies as well. In his book Universities on Fire: Higher Education in the Climate Crisis (2023), Bryan Alexander describes encountering “a great deal of pushback” against similar proposals to those in the CLEAT report: “offering reduced faculty air travel as a topic for discussion elicited sadness, protests, rancor, and even insults” (83).

But alternatives are available. Ken Hiltner, Professor of English at the University of California-Santa Barbara, has long been a proponent of “nearly carbon-neutral conferences,” which have many added benefits: They allow for more equitable participation from scholars in the Global South as well as graduate students and parents and other caretakers, and they are also appealing to many for whom the price tag on a four-day conference with registration, hotel, and airfare is simply too high (see Hiltner).

Hiltner's work suggests that rather than react with fear, Germanists should embrace innovation and creativity to meet these challenges. Indeed, CLEAT was inspired by examples of innovative ways Germanists have evolved in the past, by founding Women in German (WiG); the Diversity, Decolonization, and the German Curriculum Collective (DDGC); and the Black German Heritage and Research Association (BGHRA). These groups have also already begun to model successful virtual formats and engagements throughout the year. The CLEAT report is brimming with ideas about how Germanists could move forward creatively. I encourage you to read and discuss it with colleagues and students, as almost all of it applies to other conferences and professional contexts as well. The loss of an annual gathering should be a price worth paying in light of the catastrophic losses predicted for a world with two or three degrees of warming. With virtual mentorship programs, writing partnerships, podcasts, lightning talks, and more, we can become future-fit for a climate-changed world.