August 21, 2008

Professor Who Flew to Deliver Guest Lecture Bills Stanford for Carbon Offset of Travel

Ben Shneiderman, a professor of computer science at the University of Maryland at College Park, says he was happy to give a guest lecture at Stanford University this past spring, but he was concerned about the environmental impact of his flight across the country to get there.

So when he submitted his receipts for reimbursement by Stanford’s Symbolic Systems Program, the group that had invited him, he included a charge for a small donation to the Carbonfund.org Foundation to offset the trip’s impact.

“The amount was only $11.33, but the symbolic nature of the Symbolic Systems Lab paying it was very satisfying,” said Mr. Shneiderman in an interview. He said the lab had paid it without question.

He wondered if universities should develop policies to pay such carbon offsets for professors’ travel to make the practice routine. “The principle is that it should be,” he said, since sustainability is such a big issue that higher-education institutions are advocating. “I think it is the right thing to do,” he added.

Stanford officials could not be reached for comment today about whether they’ve paid such offset costs for other visiting speakers. Should colleges be expected to pay those kinds of costs? —Jeffrey R. Young

Comments

1. What’s the big deal? I always require 200 M&Ms with the blue ones picked out and 7 bottles of Evian with the caps loosened. Seems like pretty much the same thing.

   — PLW    Aug 21, 01:47 PM    #

2. And if the above posters were birds, it would be obvious that the dodo has made a come-back from the extinction list. For what should be an intellectual forum (given the Chronicle’s orientation), I’m amazed at the blooming idiots posting on these pages. It’s refreshing to see Professor Shneiderman being cognizant of his negative impacts on the earth and wanting to do some small bit to raise our awareness and make the effort towards mitigating those impacts. Contrasted witrh those above who – from their strident protestations – are most likely driving hummers & doing their best to plunder any and all resources they can. After all, why leave ANYTHING to future generations (except a mess they will need to live in / clean up)?

   — Gary    Aug 21, 02:59 PM    #

3. Why stop at the symbolic gesture, Gary? If Prof. Shneiderman were really so concerned with his carbon footprint, couldn’t he have done his lecture from College Park and webcasted it to Palo Alto? Why these futile half-measures such as purchasing carbon offsets?

   I have to stop commenting now — the hamsters on the wheel mill powering my laptop are getting tired.

   — J. Ward    Aug 21, 03:36 PM    #

4. I have to agree with Gary on this one. Carbon offsets to flights are cheap in comparison. Flying takes a huge toll on the environment (usually worse than driving, depending on many factors of course). While I don’t think that buying carbon offsets should be required of the host, I do think that colleges should think about this issue more deeply, such that hopefully many will adopt policies of paying for alternative energy.

   — Katherine    Aug 21, 03:36 PM    #

5. Why stop at the flight? He should bill them for footprint of travel to airport, the power used to run the hall where he gave the speech, the energy used by the people attending to get to and from the speech, and of course the net exhalation of CO2 from his lungs as he gave the speech.

   — Smith    Aug 21, 03:37 PM    #

6. Actually, while I agree with Professor Schneiderman sentiment, it is unethical to charge Stanford for the environmental impact after the fact. He should have told them ahead of time that as a requirement for him to make the journey to Stanford, that they would have to make this donation to offset the environmental impact of his visit. Of course, he should have also asked for a variety of other donations to cover other environmental concerns, but what’s a little ascertainment bias amongst friends?

   — Dr. Joseph L. Graves Jr.    Aug 21, 03:44 PM    #

7. My hamsters got a second wind, so I can comment a little bit more.

   I agree in principle with Dr. Graves. This sort of “donation” (and frankly that is really what it is) should have been negotiated up front (assuming it was not). It would be equivalent to someone agreeing to speak in New Orleans, then billing the host for a $10 donation made to Habitat for Humanity. A nice gesture maybe, but something that should either have been worked out in advance or paid out of the speaker’s own pocket. One would assume that Prof. Shneiderman received an honorarium for his talk, so maybe he should have paid the $11.33 to assuage his green guilt.

   — J. Ward    Aug 21, 03:52 PM    #

8. I agree with #7. I support the goals of Dr. Shneiderman, but you would think that a professor of computer science could figure out a way to video conference.

   — TAD    Aug 21, 03:54 PM    #

9. Methodology & Merits aside; Doesn’t someone have to start the ball rolling?

   — zahid    Aug 21, 03:54 PM    #

10. J. Ward – That knock on your door will be PETA investigating your hamsters’ living conditions.

    Honestly, I was on a flight a few months back and heard an especially talkative passenger behind me boast how he worked for a PIRG and was on his way to the University of ____ to discuss how they were going to settle their multi-million dollar carbon footprint.

    I work in budget planning and my institution is already looking at putting aside 7 figures for that purpose. Joke all you like – those are dollars you won’t see in the classroom.

    — GB    Aug 21, 04:04 PM    #

11. I’m submitting a bill to everyone who commented on this story before I did. The bill is to offset the oxygen wasted when I yelled profanity at everyone who defends anything related to global warming, carbon offsets or Al Gore.

    — DW    Aug 21, 04:11 PM    #

12. “He’s also a good guy and one of the most-sincere idealists in the academic world.”

    It’s funny how idealists so often want to fund their dreams from others’ pockets, not their own.

    — Natasha M.    Aug 21, 04:12 PM    #

13. hear hear, Natasha! Thank you. These professors love spending other people’s money, and the fact that he did AFTER the conference shows it’s more about HIM than about the environment. What a hoax.

    — DW    Aug 21, 04:15 PM    #

14. Where are all the tree huggers and liberals that the right wingers insist are infesting our campuses? Do all of you read The Chronicle during Limbaugh’s commercials?

    — Lee C    Aug 21, 04:24 PM    #

15. Hey Boys and Girls!

    Do you have a nice trust fund? Do you clip coupons? Do you regularly receive a disability check? Or do you have a consistently light teaching load (because your dean can’t figure out how to move your dead wood off the beach)? Or maybe you’ve already sued your college and have received a nice settlement.

    If any of these apply, then YOU TOO CAN BECOME A TROLL here on the Chronicle message boards! Just keep sending us your B.S. Woo-hoo!

    — Reel Deal    Aug 21, 04:35 PM    #

16. I think the prof’s gesture would be more compelling if he had advised Stanford how much he already kicked in, and asked for a matching donation.

    — wm    Aug 21, 04:35 PM    #

17. I am now convinced the world is doomed. If a group of academics can’t understand that we are choking our planet to death with pollutants (YES, including carbon dioxide!), then what hope is there that we, as a nation, will have the will to curb our unsustainable behaviors? I want to tell you all how frightened I am, but the few of you who get all your news from FOX just won’t understand.

    — Mark Stewart    Aug 21, 04:40 PM    #

18. It would be interesting to do an audit of these “carbon offset” firms or organizations to see if in fact they are actually delivering the goods as promised. For example, 100 acres of recently planted saplings does not equal the offset of 100 acres of mature trees. Hopefully we’ll not find out that carbon offsets are as big of a green hoax as is ethanol.

    Carbon offsets are indeed better than nothing, but I suspect that to a large degree they primarily reduce guilt rather than actually reducing carbon — such as the rich folks who hired substitutes to do their fighting for them in the Civil War.

    — Doug    Aug 21, 04:45 PM    #

19. No, carbon offsets are not better than nothing. Carbon offsets are the resultant hoax of the larger global warming hoax. Wait, sorry…almost forgot to include the obligatory “and I don’t even watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh.” Whew! That was close.

    — DW    Aug 21, 04:50 PM    #

20. Um, why should he have negotiated this before he traveled? It sounds like he submitted (as in most Univs) his receipts AFTER his trip. I think his statement is that reimbursing for carbon offsets should be as natural for travel as reimbursing for food and hotels. There’s probably a department at Stanford looking over his receipts — if they object to it, there’s a process in place for letting him know.

    — S    Aug 21, 04:54 PM    #

21. Never before has so much commentary been made over $11.33

    — MW    Aug 21, 04:55 PM    #

22. If we had all just followed Camille Paglia’s injunction to stop holding/attending conferences, think of the money and pollution we would have saved.

    — JustPassingBy    Aug 21, 05:05 PM    #

23. How much offsetting is needed to make a difference, and what difference will be sought (which coastal cities should be saved, for example)? I wonder if we’re on a runaway train and imagining that sticking a foot out matters. All that aside, Canada can benefit from the prosperity of a Northwest Passage.

    — wm    Aug 21, 05:07 PM    #

24. There’s a chance nobody at Stanford noticed it. In any event, I hope it wasn’t charged to a sponsored project.

    — RL    Aug 21, 05:08 PM    #

25. Dear Gary (#6),

    I’ve noticed over the last six months or so that the first 2 or 3 responses to EVERY Chronicle article (no matter how obscure) are snide, one-sentence quips by a conservative toeing the Republican party line.
    Perhaps “Beth”, “ZK”, etc. really are three different (apparently unemployed?) people who always get the first crack in. But more likely, they’re a single amateur or even paid professional troll. Who very likely does not even subscribe to the Chronicle.

    (The real conservative scholars and academics are much, much smarter; and—like all academics everywhere—cannot resist far lengthier posts. :-)

    I’d say “ignore them,” but alas, this is the problem with the internet: some adolescent with an idée-fixe can hold the rest of us hostage. bummer.

    — d    Aug 21, 05:13 PM    #

26. I’m with June Dania Quayle above (#5). Ben Shneiderman is a University of Maryland colleague in a neighboring department. He is a distinguished scientist, an idealist, and an all-around good guy. That makes him the opposite of all the idiots in the long list of commenters above.

    — Don Langenberg    Aug 21, 05:37 PM    #

27. It is gratifying to see others intelligent enough to recognize that the burgeoning human population is stressing our planet. It is too bad that those who refuse to acknowledge that fact are so characteristic of dw (#15) – no intelligent discourse or reasoned arguments to support their postion, only “yelled profanity at everyone who” s/he doesn’t agree with.

    Certainly, there are ways for all of us to reduce our production of climate-adverse toxins. I know many who do what they can as a way of life. That means – Natasha (#16) that I (& they) DO fund our beliefs from our pockets! Of course, all the “head in the sand” FOX spews types driving their big, bad humungous gas-swillers still want the U.S. government to keep subsidizing oil consumption through tax incentives rather than pay what gas would cost without those props.

    Unfortunately, mitigation – as a general rule – is a poor substitute for preservation. However, after looking at the Carbonfund.org web site, I’m impressed at what they are trying to do. Especially since 95% of the money collected goes to battling our energy consumption addiction. Kudos to Professor Shneiderman in his quest to be a responsible individual.

    — Gary    Aug 21, 05:58 PM    #

28. The bigger issue is what is accomplished with the funds extorted from Stanford? The real cure is webcasting and thus avoiding the trip. Everyone saves/wins.

    — Donad    Aug 21, 06:06 PM    #

29. If the objective is to reduce carbon emissions and green-house gases, can one of you f’n geniuses explain how buying an offset reduces or eliminates your pollution?

    — Dale    Aug 21, 08:55 PM    #

30. The only way that we humans could possibly alter the world temperature is if we decide to use the bomb. many times, over, and over..
    The sunspot activity has decresed..hence, our now global COOLING…
    Its the sun, folks.
    We could not affect the temperature if we made an actual atempt to increase it.
    Its the sun.

    — Nuclear    Aug 21, 10:25 PM    #

31. Carbon credits, phooey. You want to make a difference? Go plant some trees! Lots of them! Or go build a rain garden! Do something constructive with your money, don’t just blow it away on some hot air…….

    — Horticulture Person    Aug 21, 11:15 PM    #

32. RL has a point – “There’s a chance nobody at Stanford noticed it.” The staff person involved probably looked at $11.33 for a “Carbon Offset” and thought it was a new iced-coffee concoction at Starbucks.

    Seriously, though, I work at Stanford and we’re very proactive here re: environmental issues. I’m proud that whomever OK’d this did the right thing. Our mascot is a tree, after all!

    — lh    Aug 22, 02:28 AM    #

33. Dale (#33) – I’m not an f’n genius or any other kind of genius, but it doesn’t take a whole lot of intelligence to understand that contributing money towards planting trees results in CO2 being removed from the atmosphere.

    As for Nuclear (#34), thanks for the introduction to our Brave New World – repeat a lie (sun spots) often enough and people will begin to believe it’s true. Pretty much the mantra of the current failed administration.

    — Gary    Aug 22, 08:51 AM    #

34. For a mere $10 donation to the Arbor Day Foundation, they will send you 11 trees, selected for your zone, that you can plant anywhere you like. How many trees will Al Gore buy with $11.33?

    I’ve got my 11 trees planted in my backyard. I will now standby to accept your accolades for doing my part to save the planet.

    — Tracy G.    Aug 22, 09:49 AM    #

35. Tracy G.—I am applauding! LOL

    — L Wood    Aug 22, 10:35 AM    #

36. Flew? He FLEW to give a guest lecture? We could have some respect for him had he walked or at least traveled to and from the west coast atop a flatulant-free horse. But FLYING to a conference??? How gross!

    — Greener than Thou    Aug 22, 12:11 PM    #

37. He could stop breathing and save 0.22 tons of CO2 per year and even reduce the methane he emits not to mention the water vapor! The professor is a theoritical genus and a practical ass.

    — Randolph M. Ferlic    Aug 22, 12:44 PM    #

38. globle wamring is a hoxe. people cant hurt the earth. all you elitest libral types need to shut up. science is not teh absolute truth.

    — jack arse    Aug 22, 12:59 PM    #

39. #43, how impressive. Write a grammatically incorrect sentence expressing conservative sentiments in order to paint conservatives as stupid. Congratulations on your small contribution to counterintelligence. Really impressive.

    — Elmore    Aug 22, 02:19 PM    #

40. #44 Elmore, I do believe he is joking. A troll of that power level does not frequently visit The Chronicle.

    — Absolution    Aug 22, 04:55 PM    #

41. I know he’s joking. He spelled “science” and “absolute” correctly, while spelling less difficult words, like “warming” incorrectly. If he plans to become a leader of the global warming movement, he will need to do much more work on his mockery of conservatives, a necessary skill for advancement in the ranks—much, much more important than knowing anything about science or truth.

    Moreover, advancing the global warming agenda is all about focusing on the small and insignificant and elevating it to global proportions. Jack arse will need to learn to pay much closer attention to detail.

    — Tracy G.    Aug 22, 05:44 PM    #

42. Oh, and I’m still waiting for the love due me for planting trees. Is it possible I did the right thing, but just not in a left enough way?

    — Tracy G.    Aug 22, 05:55 PM    #

43. I thought we were all teachers and profs. Some of these commentaries on global warming are surprisingly naive and off-kilter for this important issue of our time.

    — lowly adjunct    Aug 25, 07:44 AM    #

44. Has anyone else seen the irony in #14/GB’s observation about a fellow passenger who worked for a PIRG was FLYING to a university to “discuss” how they were going to settle their multi-million dollar carbon footprint. GB also noted that his/her own institution had considered setting aside $7 million for this purpose and that this money would not be available for other purposes – instruction.

    Now, I’m all for everyone doing their part to mitigate global warming, but the situation GB described raises two questions. First, how many carbon offsets will this PIRGs purchase to offset the CO2 generated by their representatives’ travel? None, probably: they will probably add it to the amount for which they are shaking down (excuse me, discussing with) universities. Second, how many future environmental scientists (who might find a real solution to global warming) WON’T be able to complete needed coursework, because core classes were cut to pay for carbon offsets?

    — Mina Neville    Aug 25, 09:18 AM    #

45. Mina – a clarification re my prior note. Re my own institution’s planning I referred to 7 figures (over $1 million) and not $7 million, thankfully. However, re the airplane conversation involving another institution that I overhead, the amount in question coincidentally happened to be very close to $7 million. My sense from the lengthy conversation I overheard was of gaining a peek inside a shakedown sort of operation. I’ve since learned from colleagues at other institutions they’re being pressured by faculty and students to make similar investments in carbon offsets.

    — GB    Aug 25, 01:52 PM    #

46. GB, thank you for clarifying the seven figure vs. seven million. IMHO, it’s still too much money, given that the PIRGs you mention are probably generating more carbon than they offset, and that the students and faculty who are putting this pressure on their institutions will, no doubt, be the first to complain when funding for other programs is cut to “offset” the costs of these types of investments.

    — Mina    Aug 25, 02:02 PM    #

47. This is too funny! I cannot wait to bill my university for the same!

    — Kyle David    Aug 25, 05:16 PM    #

Previous: Merger of 2 Food-Science Programs Crosses State Lines
Next: Leaked Contract Helps Sallie Mae and USA Funds in Court