To Travel or Not To Travel?

My carbon footprint from air travel is larger than it should be. In a typical year, I cross the Atlantic twice, cross the US from coast to coast once, and take several shorter trips within the US and Europe, with occasionally added side excursions to exotic places. Those side excursions usually happen when Philip and I say to each other:

“As long as we are already going so far, let us also explore…”

I am uneasy about my contribution to the atmospheric carbon burden. The fact that everybody around me with a thriving professional life and geographically scattered family is travelling as much or more does not assuage this unease. But what would happen if we drastically cut down on our travel? For one thing, my professional life would suffer and I would miss my close family members. Furthermore, the economies of the countries that rely heavily on tourism would suffer. We witnessed it vividly while visiting Morocco earlier this year (this was one of the side excursion appended to a professional trip to Europe).

Morocco is a perfect tourist destination: it has history, architecture, art, incredibly diverse landscapes and climates, tasty cuisine, and warm and friendly people. It has good roads and hotels, the well-organised tourist industry, and it is safe. But tourism is way down in Morocco, probably owing to a mistaken perception that it is not entirely safe, as a Muslim country in North Africa. We stayed in half empty palatial guesthouses in Fes and Marrakesh, ate in very quiet restaurants, visited empty shops, and walked through fabulous marketplaces with very few visitors from Europe, North America or Asia. Local merchants and guides confirmed these observations.

So if our carbon miles are essential for Morocco’s economy, how do we reconcile this fundamental conflict? It is somewhat analogous to the dilemma faced by the US and other wealthy countries: that consumption and consumerist lifestyles are propping the national economies. The need to realign a national economy away from mass consumption is one of the central topics of debate among the Sustainable Consumption community. To my knowledge, nobody has so far figured out how to do it, though all kinds of untested interesting ideas are circulating. And with regard to tourism, last week Richard Wilk sent to the SCORAI listserv an article about some countries taking steps to control the inflow of tourism, recognising its destructive local impacts. Although these initiatives are not driven by the concern over global carbon emissions from air transport, they nonetheless draw attention to this hugely important topic.

Finding a way out — either from consumerism or from destructive tourism — is not going to be easy.

 

Happier with a smaller income?

I am approaching the stage in my life when I need to plan for my retirement. So recently I talked to my financial advisor Jason at TIAA (Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association), which is a very large retirement fund for people working in academic, research, and medical fields. TIAA will provide me with a big chunk of my retirement income.

My homework for this meeting was to estimate what my income needs in retirement will be. I was quite surprised myself that the amount was not very high, and expected a big surprise on Jason’s face. What I got was a big smile of a man whose predictions were fully confirmed. “You are a typical happy professor”, he exclaimed. And then he offered an observation he has made over the years of providing retirement planning advice: about income, consumption, standard of living and happiness. In his work he sees two kinds of professors: those with modest incomes, employed at liberal arts colleges and universities, and those with high incomes, employed at medical schools. By far the modest earners have more secure and happier retirement than the high earners. Throughout their careers the modest earners save a larger part of their income and then transition into retirement without a significant reduction in income or changes in lifestyles. What makes them happy and fulfilled does not require large income: friends, intellectual life, family, books, outdoors, arts, good health, and financial security.

In contrast, Jason noted, the high earners are poorer savers throughout their lives. They have lifestyles that, to maintain unchanged in retirement, require a very large nest egg, greater than many of them have accrued. For theses professors, retirement means giving up some of the basic lifestyle features that define them: large multiple houses with expensive upkeep, ski lodges in Colorado, and summer house on the beach, friendships and a social life of high spending, and so on. Never mind what one can objectively say about the necessity of these lifestyle features: when it is your baseline and you have to give it up it can be a real and painful loss.

In other words, Jason’s experience is entirely consistent with the happiness and well-being studies.

reading a book 2.jpg