30
Travel
MEG
Computing
25
20
15
10
Emissions per person
in Germany
5
Limit per person
0
reality
no He-
recycling
use trains
Figure 1: CO2-emissions per paper in three scenarios. A) estimated real emissions, B)
emissions if no Helium-recycling was performed, C) emissions if the same distance was
traveled per paper, but by train instead of airplane. For comparison, yearly emission per
person and year in Germany as well as the limit of sustainable emissions per person and
year are marked as black lines. Yes, this is a bar graph and I think it’s appropriate [6].
Those finding themselves in a more
powerful position can have a much
bigger impact. When organizing con-
ferences, choosing the location de-
pendent on where the likely partici-
pants work can drastically cut carbon
emissions [8]. While it generally seems
more reasonable to bring a limited
number of speakers to a big audience,
emissions can be further reduced if
speakers from remote locations give
their talks virtually, which can be sup-
plemented by technical solutions
to enable interaction. Additionally,
conference organizers can promote
climate awareness among their par-
ticipants by supplying information on
alternatives to air travel or emission
compensations. For big conferences,
it might even be possible to organize
additional ground transportation to
the conference location.
If you are in the position to acquire sci-
entific equipment, it can make a great
difference to investigate alternatives
and recycling options such as the MEG
center did for the helium cooling. In
many cases, this might even be eco-
nomically useful – the reason to intro-
duce a helium recycling system was
an increased independence from the
helium market.
Finally, funding bodies and administra-
tors could influence the environmental
impact of science by requesting infor-
mation on climate costs in grant ap-
plications and more readily supplying
12 | NEUROMAG | May 2017
funds for alternatives to travel [9] or
cutting bureaucracy (it has been es-
timated that 44000 pages may be
printed for the filling of a faculty posi-
tion in Greece [10]).
To me, science is inherently directed
towards the future. We are building on
knowledge that previous generations
have gained, and future generations
will build upon our work – if they will
have a planet to live on that permits
sufficiently comfortable conditions for
luxuries such as research. While curi-
osity might still compel us to find out
as much about the world as we can,
knowing that our branch of intelligent
life has no future in the medium term
would take away one of the major
drives for science. Scientists, I believe,
should be and are invested in the fu-
ture and therefore should care about
the climate. And caring means acting
– even if it is only in tiny steps. I hope
that in the future scientists on all lev-
els will be more aware of the environ-
mental impact of their work. Research
has all sorts of costs that we take into
account when making decisions – is it
worth to take animal lives? Is the time
and money well spent on the project?
We should take climate costs into ac-
count, too.
Please note that all numbers in this
article are approximate and are meant
to be understood in terms of their or-
der of magnitude.
Florian Sandhäger graduated
from the Neural and Behavioral
Sciences master’s program
in 2015. He is currently a PhD
candidate in the laboratory of
Markus Siegel at the MEG Center
and the Centre for Integrative
Neuroscience in Tübingen.
[1] www.calculator.carbonfootprint.com/
calculator.aspx?lang=de&tab=3
[2] www.co2-emissionen-vergleichen.de/
Lebensmittel/CO2-Lebensmittel-Fleisch-
Kaese.html
[3] www.de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_
der_L%C3%A4nder_nach_CO2-Emission
[4] Achten, W. M. J., Almeida, J. & Muys,
B. (2013). Carbon footprint of science:
More than flying. Ecological Indicators, 34,
352–355
[5] www.gov.uk/government/publications/
greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-
factors-2015
[6] www.neuromag.wordpress.
com/2015/11/25/bar-graphs-anyone/
[7] Reay, D. S. (2003). Virtual solution
to carbon cost of conferences. Nature,
424(6946), 251
[8] Stroud, J. T., & Feeley, K. J. (2015). Re-
sponsible academia: Optimizing conference
locations to minimize greenhouse gas emis-
sions. Ecography, 38(4), 402–404.
[9] Burke, I. C. (2010). Travel Trade-Offs for
Scientists. Science, 330(6010), 1476
[10] Synolakis, C., & Foteinis, S. (2009).
Choking on carbon emissions from Greek
academic paperwork. Nature, 461(7261),
167