We can’t live up to our own standards

“I don't think we necessarily got to the bottom of why that is. We sort of have a sense, because we put in field work as a predictor. And yes, the people that do more international field work, of course, fly more to collect their data and it's a global issue,” says Whitmarsh.

“So that partly explains it, but not fully. Even over and above that, they were doing more flying. I think a factor is, as climate change is an intrinsically international concern, there are more international meetings, policy type meetings, COP meetings, IPCC events and so on. I'm an IPCC author, and honestly, I feel sick with the amount of travel they ask of us.”

There are clearly institutional factors at play in this example, though it’s not always the case. And this is not just about climate scientists. So, the question ‘Why do climate scientists fly so much?’ is really part of a broader question on ‘how can actions and beliefs be so misaligned?’

Someone poised to tackle such a question is Professor Peter Singer, an ethicist, philosopher and prolific author whose works include 1975’s Animal Liberation. Amongst other things, he has explored the AB gap both theoretically and experimentally with colleagues, such as Eric Schwitzgebel.

Professor Singer argues the gap becomes especially interesting, though problematic, when expressed by people who devoted their careers to thinking about an issue.

“Regarding philosophers working in ethics, and the eating of animals, I’ve seen quite a large gap between their attitudes and behaviours. Something I've noticed often is that these philosophers say things like, 'Oh, I really agree with what you say about animals. I don't have any counter argument to it, but I just love steak,',” says Singer.

“To me, the inconsistency is much more glaring when it is somebody who's actually thought about ethics yet maintains a glaring contradiction, supporting a practice by purchasing certain products or whatever the case may be. And flying is something that is harder to quit in a way, than eating meat."

Professor Singer once ran a controlled study which found that students exposed to discussion classes on the ethics of eating animals subsequently purchased fewer meat-containing meals, while a control group showed no change. This suggests that while it’s true knowledge alone can’t change everyone, the AB gap is not inevitable and educational interventions can yield measurable changes in behaviour. So why does the AB gap persist in academics?

"I think this is not simply an individual problem. It’s a problem of how academia is organised, its structures, incentives, evaluation criteria, the H-index, etc. It’s the expectation that you need to physically go places, be hypermobile” says Ariane Wenger, a lecturer at the Department of Environmental Systems Science at ETH Zürich in Switzerland.

“If we try to address academic flying with just a bottom-up approach, I don't think it will work, because as long as the system rewards detrimental activities like flying, people can’t realistically be expected to transform their practices.”

Wenger has contributed to research on academic flying. Her co-authored 2024 paper looking at conference air travel surveyed researchers from 17 universities and research institutions across Switzerland, Germany and Austria, making it one of the largest studies on academic conference travel. Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that air travel can and should be reduced, but that conferences are genuinely valuable for networking, visibility, research collaborations, and career advancement.

But the team also used the period during the Covid pandemic as a sort of case study for when conferences either couldn’t take place, or were forced to go online.

During that period, many researchers discovered that meetings and conferences could often be held virtually, albeit with drawbacks. They tended to appreciate aspects such as lower costs, greater accessibility and lower emissions. But the limitations imposed on networking and interaction was a recurring sore point.

Wenger concluded that reducing conference flying is possible, but only if universities and other parties involved are prepared to evolve and address things like formats, funding, incentives and expectations.

“These are collective problems that can only be solved with collective action. Not only will a bottom-up approach fail, but a top-down one would too, due to the resistance you’d face. You have to take the people with you,” says Wenger.

“I really think it lies in the power of collective action. Overall, the most powerful thing would be changing the academic system itself. But who's responsible for that?

“You need everybody on board from every level. And it raises an unpalatable notion for any institution brave enough to try to enact change, the penalties for being an early mover.”

The situation resembles a classic prisoner's dilemma. There are clearly benefits to academic flying, especially where conferences are concerned. Institutions would suffer if faced with reductions on flying for their academics, advisors and administrators, a problem compounded by the imbalances in geography and economic positions. It’s easy for Europeans with high-speed trains to condemn some instances of flying, but that’s a privileged position. So, while every university under the sun has some kind of green-initiative on display, few want to make big changes quickly.

While the overall conclusion is that the AB gap doesn't necessitate hypocrisy, as climate scientists fly more than people expect, it’s easy to see why it’s labelled as such by a vocal and critical branch of the media. Professor Singer is right that expertise and moral reflection carry greater personal responsibility, while Whitmarsh and Wenger reinforce that responsibility cannot rest with individuals alone. Together, their perspectives suggest the solution lies somewhere in between.

Academic flying has become a visible symptom of a much deeper issue, the incentives structure within academia. As Tseng, Lee and Higham from the University of Otago in Aotearoa New Zealand make abundantly clear in a paper from 2022, the problem won’t be solved by asking researchers to be better people, it's going to be about redefining what activities, achievements and ultimately behaviours universities see fit to reward.