The industry which is probably responsible for producing more hot air than any other, the academic publishing industry, is being exhorted to become carbon neutral. In an article in the Scholarly Kitchen, the official blog of the Society for Scholarly Publishing, entitled a ‘Call for Carbon Neutrality in Scholarly Publishing’ a group of senior publishers from a range of scholarly societies who constitute the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Advisory Council of the ISMTE (International Society for Managing and Technical Editors) has issued the call. It is not made clear why carbon neutrality is the concern of a group dedicated to diversity, equity and inclusion, but for a piece of climate change virtue-signalling, this article takes some beating.
The opening sentence says: “Like COVID-19 and systemic racism, reducing the worst effects of climate change is something that needs to be addressed at every level of society, including scholarly publishing.” With reference to Earth Day (which took place last weekend), the UN Climate Change Conference, COP 27 and an article entitled ‘Call for Emergency Action’ by Laurie Laybourn-Langton of the IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research), it continues in the same vein:
Our businesses and associations must band together and work collectively toward reducing carbon emissions at levels that will provide our children and grandchildren with a livable [sic] world. It is not enough to simply publish research on this topic. We must work directly to combat climate change in our operational activities as well.
Quoting directly from the Laybourn-Langton article, the authors demonstrate they have fallen for the usual climate change tropes as in, “Health is already being harmed by global temperature increases and the destruction of the natural world” and the usual stuff about how the ‘climate emergency’ is having a disproportionately harmful effect on the poor and the oppressed.
Helpfully, the authors of the ‘Call for Carbon Neutrality in Scholarly Publishing’ quote the Wikipedia definition of ‘carbon neutrality‘ and concede that: “Carbon emissions from the knowledge economy in North America and Europe may be small relative to other sectors. This does not make them inconsequential.” But the piece neglects to set out what the carbon footprint of the academic publishing industry is, which aspects of the industry are contributing to that footprint and how that could be reduced.
Surely, carbon emissions from the ‘knowledge economy’ are not only small but are indeed inconsequential. There can be few processes that are specific to this industry that generate much of a carbon footprint over and above the usual things such as heating buildings and powering desktops that every industry has. But the use of paper to print journals and books has largely been stopped in favour of online journals and more recently of online books. Very few leading publishers and their associated scholarly societies publish anything in hard copy these days, even for advertising at conferences. Journals are online and university libraries order almost exclusively electronic copies of textbooks. At academic conferences, where once you came away with a pile of journals to read, you are usually handed a business card with a QR code to gain access to some free articles to read. Is it the proliferation of these business cards that these climate activists are concerned about? If so, that’s a campaign I could get behind.
When I first joined the editorial board of an academic journal in 1994 I made regular expenses paid trips to London and Oxford, international board members were flown in, and we were often flown across the globe to meet in exotic places. Editorial boards have long since abandoned these practices. The COVID-19 restrictions put an end to them, with all meetings now being held online. It is genuinely hard to see how much closer to carbon neutrality the academic publishing industry could be.
The authors exhort organisations to adopt measures that will keep “global temperature increases below 1.5°C”, which shouldn’t be difficult given that the average global temperature is currently falling. Being in publishing, they must also broadcast their efforts so the public can follow their good example. The likely soporific effect of such proclamations escapes the authors who suffer from a comical lack of self-awareness. They end with a climate ‘call to arms’:
It is hoped climate neutrality will become part of our discourse on social media and in our business meetings, just as we continue to publish about climate change in our journals. If this problem is going to be solved, it will not be through the work of a single person, organisation or government. It will be through our collective action.
Stirring stuff!
Dr. Roger Watson is Academic Dean of Nursing at Southwest Medical University, China. He has a PhD in biochemistry.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Blar Blar Blar! Self important tw*ts!
It is not made clear why carbon neutrality is the concern of a group dedicated to diversity, equity and inclusion
That’s absolutely clear: Just Like COVID-19 and systemic racism, it’s part of the same pseudo-revolutionary scam by the same (kind of) people. They have some set of policies they want to see implemented (like favoritism towards groups they want associate with), some set of fortunately silent (or even yet unborn) pitiful victims on whose behalf they claim to be speaking (like the poor and oppressed or our childrend and grandchildren) and some ill-defined problem with supposedly apocalyptic consequences which urgently needs to be addressed.
The only sensible way to deal with this is to reject it. The purposes of politics is to improve the present and not, to solve problems of future generations before they even manifest themselves. Future generations will have to look after themselves once the time has come for that, they’re going to face problems we don’t have an idea of yet and will address them with means which haven’t been invented so far. People who are permanently stuck in the middle of the 20th century ought to consider relegating themselves to museums instead of claiming their ever more distant past would really be the future.
If you go back to 1923 it would be impossible to predict what 2023 would look like. —–The Internet. Aeroplanes, Cars, Lighting, Gas central heating, Massive rise in life expectancy, Freedom from preventable diseases, Appliances to bring an end to back breaking labour etc etc etc etc. Trying to pretend you want to decarbonise for the benefit of future generations that will be 3 times wealthier than we are is mealy mouthed eco posturing that tries not to admit what climate change policies are really about, and they are mostly not about the climate. The amount of politicians who bleat about their “children and grandchildren” is vomit inducing. Especially as these same pretend to save the planet people are doing their best to remove the very fuels they will need to have the standard of living their grandfathers and grandmothers currently have. because you cannot power industrial society on wind, sun, hydrogen or tidal. Constant brainwashing today has a whole generation of young people who are clamouring for their own impoverishment and infact they glue themselves to the road and “demand” it.
“Trying to pretend you want to decarbonise for the benefit of future generations that will be 3 times wealthier than we are is mealy mouthed eco posturing…”
On current trajectories and unless we stop the Davos Deviants one thing I can absolutely guarantee is that future generations WILL NOT be three times wealthier than we are, three times poorer most probably.
What is having a “disproportionately harmful effect on the poor and the oppressed” is denying them fossil fuels. One billion people in the third world have no electricity. ——–Just take a moment to contemplate that. ————NO ELECTRICTY.— This is a diabolical disgrace. The EU (climate activists supreme) at one point spent vast sums on the idea that they could cover the Sahara in Solar Panels and import that electricity back into Europe. What a total smack in the face for the worlds poorest. The phony planet savers would deny these poor people access to fossil fuels that would bring them out of the abject misery of a stoneage existence, and then steal their sunshine and cable it all back to the wealthy EU.
And denying them food by closing down productive farms in western countries.
And trying to reduce CO2 (plant food) levels to reduce crop yields, even though this is not possible.
Talking of heights of absurdity, yet possibly sound business sense and an eye for money…
By co-incidence, an advert appeared today in my inbox for Boom Technology, which is seeking share capital and other funding to re-introduce supersonic flight. The brochure ingeniously leverages the customer desire for all things Green, by explaining how really expensive the pre-Green fuel bill was for supersonic flight, yet somehow fudges the issue of how Green fuel is even more expensive than aviation kerosene. Presumably the target customer base is rich Green virtue-signallers who will be persuaded that they are Saving The Planet by flying supersonic, “because it’s Green, innit?” Presumably government employees will also be encouraged to fly the green flag by going supersonic whenever possible, especially if they are Important People.
Assuming this is not mere pamphletware and prospectus fluff, I wonder where the money will actually come from? Will it be from early investors and government funding rather than customers, rather like domestic solar panels and windfarm owners? Who will keep it financially aloft when the Green Mania wears off, like the Railway Mania faded in the late 1840s ?
… which reminds me. Railway Mania was partly the invention of new technology but also partly the result of collusion between MPs and venture capitalists that caused all manner of Acts of Parliament to be passed to support building railways, some brilliantly conceived, some hopelessly economically, some unfortunate gambles, and some outright fraud on investors. Surely MPs these days don’t stoop to taking bribes, or aren’t just gullible dupes, to support massive financial scams perpetrated on small investors and the general public….???
But didn’t I read somewhere that internet servers worldwide use about 10% of all generated electricity, so putting stuff on-line only contributes to the need for that power and despite what claims are made, not all of it is “green”. Please correct me if I’m wrong.