I have decided not to fly to any more conferences because I believe the harm I am doing by flying outweighs any value my presence at the conference might have. I neither make nor intend any judgement on those who continue to do so. They may feel that what they bring to or take away from an event justifies air travel and any damage is accepted as a necessary evil. It’s a decision everyone must make for themselves.

I am aware of a couple of possible objections to my position, so I’ll deal with them before they’re made. The first is that the plane would take off whether I were on it or not. To put it another way, even if I don’t do it, others will. As an objection it’s both logically and ethically inadmissible – ethically, because it denies moral agency. We are all responsible for our choices. No special pleading allowed. Logically, because it overlooks the fact that if you indulge in or uphold a practice, you are partly responsible for it.

The second also comes from the ‘if I don’t do it’ position, but from a different direction: my action is trivial. It will make absolutely no difference, since others will continue to do it. If that’s your argument, consider this: since most of philanthropy consists of supporting groups and individuals to adopt new practices or forsake existing ones and is predicated on the idea that one person can make a difference, you may be doing the wrong job.

There’s a third one – the carbon offset argument. Expert sources seem to agree that while carbon-neutral flight is possible by the use of carbon capture techniques, it will take a while for the necessary technology, government incentives and public willingness to line up. And that’s probably time we don’t have.

According to IATA, only 1 per cent of UK air travellers always pay to offset the carbon emissions of their flights, while UK consumer website, Which? finds that only four of the most-used airlines were offering their own schemes (2022 figures) and these are often unsatisfactory to say the least. The same site quotes Professor Simon Lewis of University College London describing Ryanair’s scheme for offsetting as ‘woefully inadequate’ and a ‘green gimmick rather than a serious attempt to slow down climate change’.  As Responsible Travel points out, tackling climate change requires us to actively reduce our carbon footprint, rather than trying to restore the damage afterwards.

For those, like me, who only got to conferences to report on them, I believe it’s time to consider alternatives. The rapid progress of livestreaming means that you can get what you need without actually being there. Perhaps reporting at a remove loses some of the ‘flavour’ of the proceedings, but as many reports don’t convey much of the flavour anyway, this may not be much of a loss. There’s is also the possibility – something which Alliance already practises – of asking those who are attending to write blog posts, which has the added advantage of providing several different perspectives of an event. I believe both of these possibilities need to be more fully exploited by philanthropy media.

Even so, many will feel this is less satisfactory than a first-hand account but if we are to make what terms we can with the climate crisis, some sacrifices will be necessary. In passing, our reluctance or slowness to renounce practices which have been shown to be damaging to the environment and to consult instead our own convenience have helped bring us to the place we are today. If we continue to drag our feet, we may find that more significant changes than those I’m proposing are forced upon us and sooner than we think.

I don’t say I won’t go to any more conferences, just that I won’t go by air. For practical purposes, that may amount to the same thing. Personally, I quite like going to conferences. It gets me out of the office, I meet interesting people, I get to see a bit of the world – but if that’s at the expense of contributing to its destruction, it’s time to stop.