The Cost of Science

I've spent much of the past month driving, in the name of science. Driving down the highway to the next field site, driving the boat to the next site, driving back to the launch, driving to the next boat launch. And endless number of hours and miles driven by land and water. All in the name of science.

The work we've been doing isn't destructive, exactly, but we are using a lot of fuel to collect the necessary data for our research projects. I often wonder, now and in past projects, if the cost of fuel and the price of emissions is worth the data and the end goal.

Trucks aren't exactly fuel efficient, particularly when towing a trailer, and boats aren't fuel efficient either, particularly not airboats. I've used ATVs in the past as well, and they use less fuel because they're smaller but still use fuel.

In graduate school I studied shorebird usage of rice fields during spring migration, and had to complete my survey rounds every 8 days. I'd drive hundreds of miles every week to visit 100 rice fields every 8 days to do my roadside surveys. I got loads of great data, had some good conclusions, and completed my thesis. But I drove thousands of miles in pursuit of that data.

If I drove 5000 miles in pursuit of that data, the average vehicle emissions is 2.1 metric tons. That's apparently equivalent to 2274 pounds of coal being burned, and 5 barrels oil being consumed.

I used the Car Carbon Footprint Calculator to estimate my carbon emission for field work, and the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Equivalency Calculator to make comparisons.

The thing that is tricky is that to collect data to make informed decisions and to make the world a better place typically requires some on the ground field work. In the case of my current research, we're studying the effectiveness of coastal restoration projects, and that information/data/modeling has implications worldwide, not just here. So in the big picture, the fuel we're using and the carbons we're emitting are smaller then the bigger problem we're trying to solve.

Except that the climate is changing, the seas are rising, the temperatures are warming, and all of that has additional complex impacts on coastal restoration and monitoring. Emitting greenhouse gases adds to the atmosphere and adds up to increase climate change.

So it's a double edged sword, really.  We need to collect the data to solve the problems and make informed decisions, but doing so also feeds the problem.

What's the answer?

I don't think there is a straightforward direct answer. My own guilt about using so much fuel in the name of science can be assuaged by me personally offsetting the carbon. It's not a total fix for it, but it can help, at least.

Finding a reputable organization to buy carbon offset credits is tricky though. There's a lot of moving parts and it's confusing. There's lots of organizations and websites that seem reputable but I'm really not sure how to tell, and they may all be reputable. However, the UN does have a carbon offset program: https://offset.climateneutralnow.org/. And because it's the UN I feel like it has a bigger bat to swing here so that seems like a good solution to me and we know it's reputable.

Not every scientific research project though has a cost of carbon emissions. Some studies require taking of animals, or clipping of healthy plants, or modifying the landscape to study how things react. There's an impact to everything we do, science or no, and I think the key is to do it responsibly and with the utmost care. We need to be aware of the impacts of our research beyond what we are actually studying and to be ethical about our work. Those are the keys, in my opinion.

Each month I donate $25 to a worthy cause and for July I will be using that money to offset carbon emissions. I am continuing my journey to a lower waste lifestyle, and this is another step in the right direction.

RESOURCES:
A Short Guide to Carbon Offsets
UN's Climate Neutral Now Offset Program
Gold Standard