Okay, say you were a group of international scientists, doing research on the Arctic, and coming off the International Polar Year, and you were going to hold a major conference to discuss your the findings over a broad area of Arctic issues. Things like the Environment, and Climate Change, with a stated goal of reviewing our understanding of the arctic system in a
time of rapid environmental change. Say your organizing committee was from across the circumpolar world. Places like Canada, the US, Russia, Finland, Sweden, France and China (France and China?) Where would you hold your conference?
Say the conference would "provide an open international forum
for discussion of future research directions aimed toward a better
understanding of the arctic system and its trajectory. Topics will range
from basic understanding of the Arctic and system-wide change to
developing response strategies to adapt and mitigate change. The
conference also will provide an opportunity for resource management and
service agencies to link the most recent science findings to their
objectives and priorities. All of the sessions have been designed to
include human dimensions and social science research to ensure a
balanced portfolio in conference talks and discussions." Where would you hold your conference?
If you answered Miami Florida, then you're right in step with the people organizing the State of The Arctic Conference this coming March. Yes, that Miami Florida. Southern tip of the continental US. About forty degrees south of the Arctic Circle, and about 90 degrees (F) warmer than my little corner of the Arctic at this very minute. Miami is about 3,300 kms (2000 miles) from the closest bit of the Arctic by any definition. (image by Wadester16, by Creative Commons licence)
I have to say that after my initial knee jerk, I'm not quite sure what to think about this. The reason they give for holding the conference in Miami, is that it is centrally located and offers cheaper airfares. The centrally located part makes (supposedly) a smaller carbon footprint, and who doesn't want to save money. Money that can be better spent on research I suppose. It is a good thing, that the Arctic, and the environmental challenges it face, are being discussed, being researched.
But…
But it smacks of "lets have a warm get away". There are other centrally located airports, relatively cheap to get to, and most of them a lot closer to the Arctic than Miami freaking Florida. For that matter there are ways of getting together that don't involve flight, if the carbon footprint is of central importance.
I get that a conference like this would cost a lot more if it was held in Arctic Bay, or Iqaluit, or hell Yellowknife. But this is a world wide conference, Helsinki is a lot closer to the Arctic, or Chicago, or Anchorage. Or Edmonton. But Miami?
All this smacks of is one of the central complaints that people who live in the Arctic have when it comes to policy and research and other such matters. That for the most part, it is run by people who have a huge, huge, disconnect with the Arctic itself.
Comments
7 responses
very well said.
Unbelievable. Makes me wonder how seriouis they really are in the first place.
Budgets are being slashed all over and everyone’s looking at ways to cut down on CO2. If they can pull off a conference that will have a long-term positive impact on the Arctic, does it really matter where it’s held? The important thing is that leading scientists are actually getting together for this type of thing in the first place.
Thank you.
Ultimately Ian, that is the important thing, hence my hesitation to outright derision. But let me ask you this, what would you think if it was a State of Hamburg conference being held in Ibiza? Or the State of Vancouver conference being held in Acapulco? State of the Pacific Ocean being held in New York? Would you not shake your head asking WTF?
The other thing that is obvious from this is that the organizers KNOW how this looks, because they took pains to explain the reasons for the location decision on their website, addressing it on its own page.
Wow! I don’t know, but things like this really upset me, and I live in S. Ontario. It is stupid how they’re just making an excuse for a ‘warm getaway’ in the name of science, research and the arctic.
I think that somehow it’s like if I were to say to an Afghani refugee, “O, I feel your pain, ya, I totally know what it’s like to be ‘bothered’ *insert whatever*….CLEARLY, I don’t know, and wouldn’t be so presumptuous to act all righteous about their situation.
Ok, so while they are so disconnected while meeting up in Florida, I guess that’s why results like anti-sealing, and other such nonsense is allowed to be tolerated, it’s not like they care to actually understand the situation they’re so fiercely passionate about.
It’s my dream to visit the Arctic! (Sorry, I can’t live there because I’m dreadfully sensitive to the cold:S). But definitely if I were a scientist, then I would like to be as close as possible to the ‘source’ as possible.
Ah boi, how they try to sound all holy and mighty by claiming it’s reducing a C02 footprint…yet when a place like Helsinki or Anchorage etc. would at least be an obvious better alternative.
Sorry, I’m finished ranting, lol. Again, your posts are always insightful. And I just find myself really admiring the Arctic…so I hope I don’t sound like some over zealous ‘southerner’ in my comment who really doesn’t know what she’s talking about…(which in a way I don’t)…lol.
Thanks for your thoughts Melodie. I think for the most part that there is a great deal of good science going up here. There certainly is a lot of interest, and more political will. Many of the scientists whose paths I’ve crossed make a concerted effort to include local knowledge. Part of the problem is that what constitutes local knowledge is sometimes poorly defined. That is where much of the disconnect that happens comes from.