pushing back on frivolous business travel that can easily be conducted by Zoom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the PP here who seems to think that we could solve all carbon emissions problems with nuclear energy, what's your plan for transportation, exactly? We're putting nuclear reactors in cars and planes?

Cars and buses could be EVs that are charged on a nuke-powered grid.

Planes could be powered by hydrogen cells, with the hydrogen fuel generated by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using nuclear power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP here who seems to think that we could solve all carbon emissions problems with nuclear energy, what's your plan for transportation, exactly? We're putting nuclear reactors in cars and planes?

Cars and buses could be EVs that are charged on a nuke-powered grid.

Planes could be powered by hydrogen cells, with the hydrogen fuel generated by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using nuclear power.

You’re wasting your time. Most of the people on this thread do not have scientific or engineering backgrounds. They have liberal arts degrees. They operate and process information by way of emotion, not facts. They aren’t even equipped to understand what you’re trying to explain: “we’re putting nuclear reactors in cars and planes?” . These people are essentially idiots when it comes to science and engineering. It’s as though you’re trying to explain string theory to bonobos. Don’t bother.

[Anonymous]

If my employee pushed back on travel for “environmental reasons,” I’d be annoyed. I’d bet they still take vacations to places they want to go. The environmental thing sounds like you just don’t want to do your job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If my employee pushed back on travel for “environmental reasons,” I’d be annoyed. I’d bet they still take vacations to places they want to go. The environmental thing sounds like you just don’t want to do your job.

OP here. I have a solid reputation in my organization. My technical skillset extends beyond the skillset of most other staff members, and so I'm critical for many of our climate analysis projects. Without me, there is no other person currently on the staff to do the work, and my track record is one of very high productivity. So I'm not worried about the point you make above. I am worried, however, that most people in the organization view these trips to conferences as free vacations. So my view is completely out-of-sync with almost everybody else's view. And no, I'm not taking lots of vacations to far-off locations. I carefully monitor my CO2 footprint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP here who seems to think that we could solve all carbon emissions problems with nuclear energy, what's your plan for transportation, exactly? We're putting nuclear reactors in cars and planes?

Cars and buses could be EVs that are charged on a nuke-powered grid.

Planes could be powered by hydrogen cells, with the hydrogen fuel generated by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using nuclear power.

But then you still have to push people to stop buying ICE cars/buses/trucks, which — regardless of how you power the grid — has been slow going. Same for all sorts of natural gas-powered appliances. I'm not against switching to nuclear energy, but I don't think it's quite the frictionless, magic fix to all our problems that it's being described as here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my employee pushed back on travel for “environmental reasons,” I’d be annoyed. I’d bet they still take vacations to places they want to go. The environmental thing sounds like you just don’t want to do your job.

OP here. I have a solid reputation in my organization. My technical skillset extends beyond the skillset of most other staff members, and so I'm critical for many of our climate analysis projects. Without me, there is no other person currently on the staff to do the work, and my track record is one of very high productivity. So I'm not worried about the point you make above. I am worried, however, that most people in the organization view these trips to conferences as free vacations. So my view is completely out-of-sync with almost everybody else's view. And no, I'm not taking lots of vacations to far-off locations. I carefully monitor my CO2 footprint.

But you haven’t provided a good reason why you shouldn’t go. Environmental concerns is not a reason. You are not in control of your company’s emissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my employee pushed back on travel for “environmental reasons,” I’d be annoyed. I’d bet they still take vacations to places they want to go. The environmental thing sounds like you just don’t want to do your job.

OP here. I have a solid reputation in my organization. My technical skillset extends beyond the skillset of most other staff members, and so I'm critical for many of our climate analysis projects. Without me, there is no other person currently on the staff to do the work, and my track record is one of very high productivity. So I'm not worried about the point you make above. I am worried, however, that most people in the organization view these trips to conferences as free vacations. So my view is completely out-of-sync with almost everybody else's view. And no, I'm not taking lots of vacations to far-off locations. I carefully monitor my CO2 footprint.

But you haven’t provided a good reason why you shouldn’t go. Environmental concerns is not a reason. You are not in control of your company’s emissions

What do you mean "environmental concerns is not a reason"? It is indeed a reason. Just because this type of thinking isn't broadly shared doesn't make it invalid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my employee pushed back on travel for “environmental reasons,” I’d be annoyed. I’d bet they still take vacations to places they want to go. The environmental thing sounds like you just don’t want to do your job.

OP here. I have a solid reputation in my organization. My technical skillset extends beyond the skillset of most other staff members, and so I'm critical for many of our climate analysis projects. Without me, there is no other person currently on the staff to do the work, and my track record is one of very high productivity. So I'm not worried about the point you make above. I am worried, however, that most people in the organization view these trips to conferences as free vacations. So my view is completely out-of-sync with almost everybody else's view. And no, I'm not taking lots of vacations to far-off locations. I carefully monitor my CO2 footprint.

But you haven’t provided a good reason why you shouldn’t go. Environmental concerns is not a reason. You are not in control of your company’s emissions

What do you mean "environmental concerns is not a reason"? It is indeed a reason. Just because this type of thinking isn't broadly shared doesn't make it invalid.

No, what makes it invalid is that it’s not your job. You aren’t in a position to determine the environmental priorities and policies of your employer. You also don’t get to say whether business travel is “worth” it to your employer. You are being asked to travel because it is part of your job duties. If you are finding that a particular conference or event is not productive, you can give your manager that feedback. But it should be based on reasons that are relevant to your job, not to the environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my employee pushed back on travel for “environmental reasons,” I’d be annoyed. I’d bet they still take vacations to places they want to go. The environmental thing sounds like you just don’t want to do your job.

OP here. I have a solid reputation in my organization. My technical skillset extends beyond the skillset of most other staff members, and so I'm critical for many of our climate analysis projects. Without me, there is no other person currently on the staff to do the work, and my track record is one of very high productivity. So I'm not worried about the point you make above. I am worried, however, that most people in the organization view these trips to conferences as free vacations. So my view is completely out-of-sync with almost everybody else's view. And no, I'm not taking lots of vacations to far-off locations. I carefully monitor my CO2 footprint.

But you haven’t provided a good reason why you shouldn’t go. Environmental concerns is not a reason. You are not in control of your company’s emissions

What do you mean "environmental concerns is not a reason"? It is indeed a reason. Just because this type of thinking isn't broadly shared doesn't make it invalid.

No, what makes it invalid is that it’s not your job. You aren’t in a position to determine the environmental priorities and policies of your employer. You also don’t get to say whether business travel is “worth” it to your employer. You are being asked to travel because it is part of your job duties. If you are finding that a particular conference or event is not productive, you can give your manager that feedback. But it should be based on reasons that are relevant to your job, not to the environment.

OP here. The conferences are often focused on climate risk. But it seems that my colleagues don't appreciate the irony that to attend a climate risk conference, they are themselves contributing to that risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my employee pushed back on travel for “environmental reasons,” I’d be annoyed. I’d bet they still take vacations to places they want to go. The environmental thing sounds like you just don’t want to do your job.

OP here. I have a solid reputation in my organization. My technical skillset extends beyond the skillset of most other staff members, and so I'm critical for many of our climate analysis projects. Without me, there is no other person currently on the staff to do the work, and my track record is one of very high productivity. So I'm not worried about the point you make above. I am worried, however, that most people in the organization view these trips to conferences as free vacations. So my view is completely out-of-sync with almost everybody else's view. And no, I'm not taking lots of vacations to far-off locations. I carefully monitor my CO2 footprint.

But you haven’t provided a good reason why you shouldn’t go. Environmental concerns is not a reason. You are not in control of your company’s emissions

What do you mean "environmental concerns is not a reason"? It is indeed a reason. Just because this type of thinking isn't broadly shared doesn't make it invalid.

No, what makes it invalid is that it’s not your job. You aren’t in a position to determine the environmental priorities and policies of your employer. You also don’t get to say whether business travel is “worth” it to your employer. You are being asked to travel because it is part of your job duties. If you are finding that a particular conference or event is not productive, you can give your manager that feedback. But it should be based on reasons that are relevant to your job, not to the environment.

OP here. The conferences are often focused on climate risk. But it seems that my colleagues don't appreciate the irony that to attend a climate risk conference, they are themselves contributing to that risk.

I think a lot of people recognize that these problems require regulatory and industrial solutions and can’t be solved at the individual level. They may see the irony but they may also be more realistic about the potential for any individual impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my employee pushed back on travel for “environmental reasons,” I’d be annoyed. I’d bet they still take vacations to places they want to go. The environmental thing sounds like you just don’t want to do your job.

OP here. I have a solid reputation in my organization. My technical skillset extends beyond the skillset of most other staff members, and so I'm critical for many of our climate analysis projects. Without me, there is no other person currently on the staff to do the work, and my track record is one of very high productivity. So I'm not worried about the point you make above. I am worried, however, that most people in the organization view these trips to conferences as free vacations. So my view is completely out-of-sync with almost everybody else's view. And no, I'm not taking lots of vacations to far-off locations. I carefully monitor my CO2 footprint.

But you haven’t provided a good reason why you shouldn’t go. Environmental concerns is not a reason. You are not in control of your company’s emissions

What do you mean "environmental concerns is not a reason"? It is indeed a reason. Just because this type of thinking isn't broadly shared doesn't make it invalid.

No, what makes it invalid is that it’s not your job. You aren’t in a position to determine the environmental priorities and policies of your employer. You also don’t get to say whether business travel is “worth” it to your employer. You are being asked to travel because it is part of your job duties. If you are finding that a particular conference or event is not productive, you can give your manager that feedback. But it should be based on reasons that are relevant to your job, not to the environment.

OP here. The conferences are often focused on climate risk. But it seems that my colleagues don't appreciate the irony that to attend a climate risk conference, they are themselves contributing to that risk.

I think a lot of people recognize that these problems require regulatory and industrial solutions and can’t be solved at the individual level. They may see the irony but they may also be more realistic about the potential for any individual impact.

Yes, but regulatory changes become more likely if a growing subset of voters are taking the lead by making lifestyle changes to reduce CO2 emissions. Personal action can promote political action, and vice versa. Conversely, inaction at the individual level can contribute to inaction at the political level.

[Anonymous]

+1 !!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If my employee pushed back on travel for “environmental reasons,” I’d be annoyed. I’d bet they still take vacations to places they want to go. The environmental thing sounds like you just don’t want to do your job.

Sounds like you need to be replaced by a more budget-conscious manager who will appreciate employees who act as good financial stewards for company funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my employee pushed back on travel for “environmental reasons,” I’d be annoyed. I’d bet they still take vacations to places they want to go. The environmental thing sounds like you just don’t want to do your job.

Sounds like you need to be replaced by a more budget-conscious manager who will appreciate employees who act as good financial stewards for company funds.

That’s not really how travel budgets work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my employee pushed back on travel for “environmental reasons,” I’d be annoyed. I’d bet they still take vacations to places they want to go. The environmental thing sounds like you just don’t want to do your job.

Sounds like you need to be replaced by a more budget-conscious manager who will appreciate employees who act as good financial stewards for company funds.

That’s not really how travel budgets work.

DP but what does this even mean? Does the money in your company’s travel budget appear by magic? If it wasn’t being wasted on unnecessary travel could it not be reallocated elsewhere?

And as to your “point” about traveling for vacation… I don’t know about you but I can’t lounge on the beach via Zoom. But I can certainly watch a bunch of people give talks via Zoom. I don’t need to fly across the country to fall asleep, I can do that at my own desk.