Introduction to Debate Two: Should the AAG Consider Carbon Offsets as Part of Its Transition to Low-Emissions Annual Meetings?

Concern about the considerable CO₂ footprint associated with travel to and from large academic conferences has been growing in light of the climate crisis (Nevins 2014; Holden et al. 2017; Parrish 2017; Cobb, Kalmus, and Romps 2018; Hamant, Saunders, and Viasnoff 2019). Academic researchers contribute to the production of significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by flying to conferences, collaborative project meetings held in person at sites, and fieldwork. By way of example, recent reports provide estimates of GHG emissions from attendees at large scientific gatherings while also offering suggestions for how to change the culture of conference-going (Le Quere et al. 2015; Fellermann et al. 2019; Kim and Pierce 2019).

Among the proposed remedies are carbon offsets, which many champion as a way of undoing the detrimental climate impacts of air travel. Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann (2019), for instance, characterized them as “a viable means of decarbonizing your air travel” (2). At the same time, many take issue with offsetting. Kevin Anderson (2012), a professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester, called offsetting “worse than doing nothing,” “without scientific legitimacy,” and “dangerously misleading” (7). As the American Association of Geographers (AAG) seeks to dramatically reduce the CO₂ emissions associated with its annual meetings—which in the recent past drew between 7,000 and 9,000 registered participants—the AAG Council’s Climate Action Task Force invited panelists to engage the debate over carbon offsets.

In our virtual session at the Denver 2020 AAG Annual Meeting, we heard three timely, interesting, and thought-provoking presentations. We are presenting two contributions from this panel session. Kathleen McAfee gives a firm “No” to the AAG regarding whether it should consider using carbon offsets to mitigate the GHG emissions resulting from travel to and from our annual meetings by attendees. She grounds her advice in the literature of geography, political ecology, and development and reviews why offsets do not work, the problems with nature-based solutions and REDD+ and some of the flaws inherent in the use of carbon markets and carbon trading. McAfee (2021) believes that the use of offsets can serve to delay effective climate action and distract us “from the need to rapidly phase out fossil fuels.”

Gifford (2021) reviews the problems of carbon offsetting but believes that not all offsets are equal and reviews the “new forms of offsetting and carbon neutralization alternatives” that are emerging. She argues that some alternatives related to negative emissions technologies or investments in renewable energy could offer a more focused implementation of offsetting that the AAG could consider alongside the adoption of virtual technologies for its annual meetings (Middleton 2019; Abbott 2020). Together these two articles present a productive space of debate regarding carbon offsetting and they showcase the analytical and critical tools that geographers can offer for engaging with the climate crisis.

Acknowledgments

It was a joy to work with Professors Gifford and McAfee to put on our panel discussion at the virtual 2020 Denver AAG meeting and to see their two illuminating papers reach fruition to be published. I continue to marvel at the dedicated work of the members of the AAG Climate Action Task Force, of which I am proud to be a contributing member.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

John T. Hayes

JOHN T. HAYES is an Associate Professor in the Geography and Sustainability Department of Salem State University, Salem, MA 01970. E-mail: [email protected]. His research interests include climate action planning, resiliency planning, and climate change adaptation planning by local and state governments; climate change vulnerability and risk assessment; and the hydro-social cycle with respect to the climate–food–water–energy nexus.