Kevin Anderson: “Laggards or leaders: Academia and its responsibility in delivering on the Paris commitments.”

This is a recording of Dr. Anderson’s plenary lecture for the Climate Action Task Force of the American Association of Geographers‘ annual meeting on April 8 2020. Due to the coronavirus, the meeting was fully virtual (#VirtualAAG). Although the meeting was much smaller than recent (in-person) ones, it was still quite sizeable:  it had about 200 sessions, and more than 1,100 participants and attendees.

Kevin Anderson is Professor of Energy and Climate Change at the Universities of Manchester (United Kingdom) and Uppsala (Sweden). He is also a long-time analyst of aviation-related emissions and a champion of flying less.

A FlyingLess Update in a Time of Coronavirus

The FlyingLess movement, it would seem, has seen its wish fulfilled, and much more quickly than expected: the number of flights worldwide has dropped precipitously in recent weeks.

Tragically, it has taken a global pandemic, to whose spread airlines have been a been a key contributor, to bring about the decrease. As a result, the general economic decline, of which reduced flying is part, has unfolded in a highly disruptive manner that is especially harmful to the already vulnerable. (What’s more, as past experience with reductions associated with economic downturns illustrates, high levels of co2 emissions are likely to return once the threat of COVID-19 passes.)

As anthropologist Jason Hickel points out in relation to the coronavirus-related downturn in industrial activity, “the crucial thing to observe is that this is happening in an unplanned, chaotic way which is hurting people’s lives. . . . What we need,” he says, “is a planned approach to reducing unnecessary industrial activity that has no connection to human welfare and that disproportionately benefits already wealthy people as opposed to ordinary people. There are much more equitable, just and carefully planned ways to approach this kind of problem.” These words certainly apply to our work to achieve far-reaching reductions in flying.

In a time of coronavirus, we continue our efforts—not least because we must in order to minimize the ravages of climate breakdown. We also express our deep sympathies and solidarity with people around the world who have lost loved ones, and who are struggling with their own wellbeing and those around them in the context of the ongoing pandemic. Of course, our sympathies and solidarity are with those suffer from the harms induced by climate change and air pollution as well.

It appears that exposure to air pollution increases the likelihood that one can contract COVID-19. As such, a silver lining of the pandemic—at least a temporary one—is that air pollution levels have dropped dramatically. One sees this in China and South Korea, in cities across the United States, and throughout Europe.

In the case of China alone—for the months of January and February—a research group led by Marshall Burke at Stanford University estimates that the reduction in air pollution “likely has saved the lives of 4,000 kids under 5 and 73,000 adults over 70 in China. This, he states, is “roughly 20x the number of lives that have been directly lost to the virus.”

Lest anyone infer that the researchers are suggesting that COVID-19  is a net positive, Burke asserts: “It seems clearly incorrect and foolhardy to conclude that pandemics are good for health. … But the calculation is perhaps a useful reminder of the often-hidden health consequences of the status quo, ie, the substantial costs that our current way of doing things exacts on our health and livelihoods.”

In the weeks prior to coronavirus becoming a pandemic on a global scale, there were many manifestations of the growing fight against “our current way of doing things” on the flying front.

In early January, for example, actor Yael Stone announced, in the wake of the devastating wildfires in Australia, her country of birth, that she was giving up her permanent residency in the United States to return to her homeland. She explained that this would put a stop to her frequent flying between the two countries, a necessary step in the fight against climate change. “The carbon emissions alone from that flying – it’s unethical. It’s not right,” she stated in a video message.

Soon thereafter, Manchán Magan, a travel writer for The Irish Times, declared in what is one of Ireland’s leading newspapers, that he would no longer fly on holiday due to aviation’s destructive impact on the planet. Also in January, Alessia Armenise, the picture editor of the UK-based magazine Stylist, having flown 19 times the previous year, pronounced that she was immediately giving up flying and embracing slow travel. Travel (implicitly of the jet-setting variety), she wrote, is “a big part of the over-consumption problem that is leading the planet to its decline.”

These high-profile, personal commitments to reduce flying are a manifestation of a larger shift in attitude—in Europe and beyond. In early March, for example, the results of a poll conducted in September-October 2019, one involving more than 28 thousand respondents in all member states of the European Union, showed that 62 percent supported a ban on short-haul flights for reasons of climate change. Seventy-two percent voiced support for a carbon tax on flights. Survey data released two months earlier indicated that strong majorities of people in China (94%), the European Union (75%), and the United States (69%) were planning to fly less in 2020, to limit their CO2 emissions.

Residents of the village of Harmondsworth, half of which would have been destroyed had Heathrow’s expansion happened. They’ve fought against expansion for 20 years.

On the collective organizing front, there were major victories in the United Kingdom.

In early February, the North Somerset council blocked a plan to expand Bristol Airport (which actually lies outside of Bristol). The expansion would have allowed the airport to accommodate 12 million passengers annually. It would have also included the extension of the passenger terminus and plane taxiways, more than 3,000 additional parking spaces, much of it on greenbelt land, as well as far-reaching changes to roads around the airport. Among the arguments put forth by expansion opponents were those of public health—a study released in late 2019 revealed that air pollution results in the deaths of five people each week in Bristol—and the harm it would entail to birdlife and bat colonies.

A little more than two weeks later, a court in London ruled that a proposed third runway for Heathrow is illegal because it would undermine the country’s obligations under the Paris agreement to cut co2 emissions. The court decision was a huge victory in what has been a 20-year campaign to stop Heathrow’s expansion. While the British government has said that it will not contest the ruling, deep concerns about airport expansion in the United Kingdom more broadly persist. Still, the decision marks the first major ruling by a court anywhere in the world based on the Paris accord.  According to The Guardian, climate campaigners across Europe see the ruling as “a red line for climate campaigning and would have lasting implications that could kill off aviation expansion.”

France is one country where such expansion is a threat. Roissy-Charles de Gaulle Airport, outside of Paris, is slated for major growth. But there is significant opposition. In January, sixty-seven mayors and presidents of regional councils from the greater Paris area called upon President Emmanuel Macron, for reasons of public health and the climate, to abandon plans to enlarge the airport.

A study released in mid-December by the Leeds Climate Commission demonstrates just how threatening airport expansion can be. It is the first position paper to examine aviation’s contribution to a UK’s city’s co2 budget. The Commission reports that, were emissions associated with the flights of Leeds residents from any airport added to the emissions from fuel and electricity used within Leeds, there would be a 21 percent increase in the city’s overall emissions. And if all flights to and from Leeds Bradford Airport were attributed to Leeds (and passengers were to increase to 7 million annually as predicted by expansion plans), those emissions would equal, by 2026, all of the city’s emissions associated with fuel and electricity consumption.

Goings-on within academia and beyond

As previous posts on our website illustrate, endeavors to “green” academic practices, especially conference-going, among other forms of networking, long precede the coronavirus. However, the pandemic has necessitated and led to dramatic growth in these efforts.

The American Association of Geographers (AAG), like many professional organizations, has cancelled its in-person annual meeting due to COVID-19.  A scaled-down (but still sizeable) version of the meeting will take place online—April 6-10, as originally scheduled—with, as of this writing, over 170 sessions. The AAG Climate Action Task Force was already planning several virtual and hybrid sessions for the meeting (in Denver) as part of its efforts to transform the annual gathering of several thousand into a low-emissions undertaking. The Task Force’s plenary session will feature climate scientist Kevin Anderson of the University of Manchester. His talk, titled “Laggards or Leaders? Academia and its responsibility in delivering on the Paris commitments,” will take place on Wednesday, April 8, 11:10am-12:25pm (Mountain Daylight Time); 1:10pm-2:25pm (EDT); and 5:10pm-6:25pm (GMT). You can “attend” the plenary via this link.

The Society for Cultural Anthropology (SCA) and the Society for Visual Anthropology will host their second carbon-neutral biennial conference (May 7-9). The conference seeks to “to internationalize and democratize anthropological knowledge in an environmentally conscious, nearly-carbon-neutral format.“ That format, according to the SCA, “will be virtual and distributed: virtual in that it will be anchored by a dedicated conference website streaming prerecorded multimedia panels; and distributed in that presenters and viewers from across the globe will participate in the conference via in-person local ‘nodes.’” Registration will soon be available on the conference website.

“DeGrowth Vienna 2020—Strategies for Social-Ecological Transformation” will take place May 29-June 1. The focus of the conference will be “the strategies we need to achieve a socially and environmentally just future.” The conference will now take place fully online. Prior to the pandemic, organizers were already envisioning the international gathering as involving no flying. Insisting that a socially and environmentally just world has to “include a drastic reduction in aviation” and that “the Degrowth Community must set an example in this regard,” organizers explicitly discouraged people from flying to the conference: “We know that aviation is a part of the current imperial mode of living and production,” they stated. “While it also allows communities around the world to be connected, we do not believe that this end justifies the intense and irreversible environmental impacts of flying.”

A little more than a week later (June 10-12), the Sustainable Consumption Research and Action Initiative (SCORAI) will open its fourth international conference. Under the theme of “Sustainable Consumption & Social Justice in an Urbanizing World,” the now-fully-online conference has lower registration rates for students and low-income participants. Before the COVID-19 outbreak, SCORAI collaborated with the KTH Royal Institute of Technology to develop a “Nordic Hub” that would have been virtually linked to the main venue in Boston; the aim of this “pilot project” was to demonstrate “how to make a scientific conference digital, lowering the number of flights for participants (especially intercontinental), but keeping the social and networking aspects of a conference.”

The European Association of Social Anthropologists (EASA) will hold its biennial meeting in Lisbon, July 21-24. With the theme of “new anthropological horizons in and beyond Europe,” the conference will include, for the first time, “a stream of ‘Nearly Carbon Neutral (NCN)’ panels”—virtual panels in other words. The goal of this innovation is “to progressively reduce the EASA biennial carbon footprint, and to widen participation to include participation by a potentially global audience of scholars for whom standard EASA membership and registration fees are prohibitive.” As of this writing, the in-person component of the conference is still scheduled to proceed.

A one-day international symposium on “Reducing Academic Flying” took place at the University of Sheffield shortly before the outbreak, on November 13. With a combination of in-person and virtual presentations, the symposium had about 30 people from the United Kingdom in physical attendance, and 80 individuals, from more than a dozen countries, attending remotely. All the presentations are now available online.

As with our previous update, there is too much to cover and, as such, we have thus decided to break up this update into two parts—to prevent it from becoming overly long. We will post Part 2 soon. It will include “Recent academic articles, working papers, and essays.”

The FlyingLess End-of the-year Update for 2019! (Part 2)

Climate change activists protest proposed expansion of Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, December 14, 2019.

To see Part 1 of the FlyingLess end-of-the-year update for 2019, go here.

At the end of December, Robert Del Naja (aka 3D), a singer with Massive Attack, told the BBC that the popular English music group wants to avoid flying.  In 2019, the band actively supported Extinction Rebellion. “[As musicians] we have enjoyed a high-carbon lifestyle,” Del Naja told the BBC’s Radio 4. “The challenge now is to not only make personal sacrifices, but to insist on the systemic change that’s needed. Business as usual is over.” This follows on the heels of an announcement in November by another prominent British rock band, Coldplay, that it will stop touring until they figure out how to make their concerts carbon neutral. “The hardest thing is the flying side of things,” said one of the band members.

Days after Massive Attack’s statement, a study was published that revealed that air pollution from planes using Heathrow Airport—including ultra-fine particles, which previous research has linked to brain cancer—are reaching central London, 14 miles [22.5 kilometers] away. According to Dr Ioar Rivas, of King’s College London, and a lead author of the study, “We expected traffic emissions to be an important source of ultra-fine particles in cities but we now know that airport emissions, even if located at the outskirts of the city, can travel far enough and reach population in urban areas.” Gary Fuller, also of King’s College and a co-author of the study, notes ,“Cities around Europe have policies to reduce airborne particles from traffic…but aircraft emissions are not being addressed in the same way.”

What make addressing such emissions all the more necessary is that, in the words of Barry Saxifrage, a climate reporter with Canada’s National Observer, the world’s aviation industry “has started burning jet fuel like there is no tomorrow. Its climate pollution is rocketing upward.” Based on data from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA), Saxifrage (who gave up flying more than a decade ago due to its impact on the climate system) finds that the aviation industry’s co2 emissions are presently rising four times faster than they did in the 1990-2010 period.

Goings-on within academia and beyond (continued from Part 1)

Ghent University Logo [EPS File] - Academia Gandavensis ...Ghent University in Belgium is playing a leading role in advancing sustainable travel by reducing flying by its personnel. Academic travel for professional purposes (what the institution characterizes as “business trips”), much of it by plane, makes up 15 percent of the university’s total co2 emissions. As such, Ghent has established a “sustainable travel policy” that includes a “decision tree” to reduce air travel—particularly to cities within 6-8 hours of travel by train from Ghent. A university-based activist group, De Groene Locomotief (The Green Locomotive), has worked over the years to bring about these changes. It has also actively encouraged people to sign the FlyingLess petition!

Image result for society for cultural anthropologyThe Society for Cultural Anthropology (SCA), a section of the (U.S.) American Anthropological Association (AAA), put together a roundtable for the recent joint-annual meeting of the AAA and the Canadian Anthropology Society (also known as CASCA) in Vancouver. The meeting’s theme was “Changing Climates: Struggle, Collaboration, and Justice.”

Anthropologist Jason Hickel has written that anthropologists have “an ethical obligation to reconsider how we approach our work. Perhaps this means shifting from the present culture of hit-and-run research (frequent trips for short stays) to ‘slow fieldwork’: reducing the frequency of visits, extending their duration, travelling overland wherever possible and developing research partnerships with anthropologists who live closer to our field [sites]. In addition to reducing emissions,” he says, “these changes may well improve the quality of our research, making it more thoughtful, more robust and more inclusive.” However, he argues, “the real elephant in the room” for anthropologists are the professional meetings. Hickel notes the irony of thousands of anthropologists flying in for the 2018 AAA meeting in San Jose, California, when “the region was being torched by some of the most destructive wildfires in its history. Photographs emerged of smoke seeping into conference rooms, and of participants walking around in masks – poignant images of a climate dystopia that is already unfolding.”

Reflecting such concerns, the November 2019, the SCA roundtable in Vancouver explored alternative models for both the annual AAA meting and other professional anthropology gatherings. “Reimagining the Annual Meeting for an Era of Radical Climate Change” was comprised of two sections, one titled “Assessing the Conventional Conference,” the other “Emerging Alternatives.” The SCA has posted the presentations online—both those done at the actual meeting as well as video contributions from anthropologists not in attendance—and the discussions that followed.

Image result for #virtualbluecop25In the run-up to the COP25 climate negotiations in Spain in December, #VirtualBlueCOP25, an online platform focusing on ocean and climate-related themes, had a series of virtual events. An initiative of Future Earth—a network of scientists, researchers, and innovators in sustainability—#VirtualBlueCOP25 included an event of the flyingless movement. The event included presentations by Kim Cobb of Georgia Tech (USA), Lisa Jacobson of Future Earth Sweden. Kim Nicholas of Lund University (Sweden) Isabel Seeger of the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (Germany), and was followed by an illuminating discussion among the participants. A video of the event is below.

Recent academic articles, working papers, and essays

Martin Young of Southern Cross University in Australia argues that there is a “symbiotic, environmentally destructive relationship between passenger air transport and economic output” under capitalism. Coupled with the fact there is not “a technologically-feasible replacement for jet fuel,” efforts to reduce flight-related emissions require an appreciation of the multiple ways in which air travel is tightly tied to the reproduction and growth of capitalist society—a matters he explores in the article. With such an analysis in mind, one way to advance a flying less agenda, he suggests in the conclusion, “may be to link air transport more closely to the emerging anti-tourist politics based around the ‘right to the city’” as well as to the “slow travel” movement and anti-airport-expansion efforts. (See Martin Young, “Capital, class and the social necessity of passenger air transport,” Progress in Human Geography, 2019: 21 pp.; DOI: 10.1177/0309132519888680)

Researchers associated with the International Council on Clean Transportation have released a working paper that measures emissions from commercial aircraft in 2018. According to the findings, greenhouse gas emissions from commercial aviation are rapidly growing. At present levels of growth, emissions are expected to triple by 2050, by which time commercial aircraft could account for a quarter of the world’s carbon budget. Passenger aircraft comprised 38 million of the 39 million commercial flights in 2018, comprising 2.4 percent of global CO2 emissions from the use of fossil fuels—a 32 percent increase over a five-year period. This increase was 70 percent higher than that projected by the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Flights emanating from the United States and its territories made up 24 percent of all commercial aviation emissions. Relatedly, flights associated with high-income countries, which have 16 percent of the world’s population, were responsible for 62 percent of related emissions. (See Brandon Graver, Kevin Zhang, and Dan Rutherford, “CO2 Emissions from Commercial Aviation, 2018,” Working Paper, The International Council on Clean Transportation, September 19, 2019.)

A study by a trio of researchers from the University of Iceland provides insight into flying practices. Focusing on local, domestic, and international travel habits of young adults (25-40 years of age) in the Reykjavik Capital Region, the researchers found that international travel for leisure purposes dominated the greenhouse gas emissions of the studied population. Responsibility for emissions was highly unequal with the top 20 percent responsible liable for 55 percent (responsibility was similarly unequal for local and domestic travel). Moreover, those with greater awareness about the climate crisis are more likely to have higher GHG emissions from flights abroad. Those who live in the center city, which is indicative of more cosmopolitan attitudes, are most likely to engage in leisure travel abroad. (See Michał Czepkiewicz, Áróra Árnadóttir and Jukka Heinonen, “Flights Dominate Travel Emissions of Young Urbanites,” Sustainability, Vol. 11, 6340, 35 pp.; doi: 10.3390/su11226340)

Sebastian Jäckle of Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg (Germany) conducted a systematic accounting of the travel-related CO2 footprints of the last six general conferences of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR).  (All the meetings took place in Europe, except one in Montreal, Canada—which had, by far, the biggest per capita footprint given that all European attendees, who make up the vast majority of participants, had to fly.) Among his findings is that the location of meetings is key. (Had all six meetings taken place in Frankfurt, Germany, for example, GHG emissions would have been “significantly lower.”) Were the ECPR to locate its meetings accordingly, and also promote low-emission, land-bound travel, as well as allow for online participation (particularly for those residing very far from the conference city), travel-related emissions would be reduced by more than 75 percent, according to the author. Such reductions greatly dwarf those that would result from switching to vegetarian or vegan meals during the conference, or refraining from printing the conference program.  (See Sebastian Jäckle, “WE have to change! The carbon footprint of ECPR general conferences and ways to reduce it,” European Political Science, Vol. 18, 2019: 630-650.)

Meanwhile, Milan Klöwer, a PHd student of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Oxford, released a working paper just prior to the opening of the annual meeting  of the American Geophysical Union in December. He estimated that travel to and from the international conference, one that involved approximately 24,000 presenters in its most recent meeting, resulted in the equivalent of more than 69,000 tons of co2 emissions, an average of 2.9 tons of co2e per scientist in attendance. Were the AGU simply to locate the meeting to a location that would minimize travel—to Chicago in particular—it would reduce meeting emissions by 12 percent.  As a whopping 74 percent of the travel emissions come from intercontinental flights, the author further estimates that, were 36 percent of the highest-emitting attendees (those who travel the greatest distance) to participate virtually, it would reduce the co2 footprint by 76 percent. To achieve more than a 90 percent reduction would require not only such virtual participation, but also a shift to a bi-annual meeting in Chicago. (See Milan Klöwer, “The travel carbon footprint of the AGU Fall Meeting 2019,” November 2019; DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3555424)

Taking steps to achieve such far-reaching cuts, argue Richard Parncutt, and Annemarie Seither-Preisler of the Centre for Systematic Musicology at the University of Graz (Austria), are matters of ethics and social equity. They contend that “today’s academic conference culture continues to put academic colleagues under pressure to burn large amounts of fossil fuels,” the concerns of climate science notwithstanding. In light of the privilege enjoyed by academics—particularly those from wealthy countries—and the fact that emerging internet-based communication technologies make possible low-co2-emitting ways to connect, the authors assert that scholars have an obligation to push for a transformation in what they call “academic conference culture.” To aid in this push, the authors offer various strategies for advocates of such transformation to work with colleagues and administrators to bring it about. (See Richard Parncutt, and Annemarie Seither-Preisler, “Live streaming at international academic conferences: Ethical considerations. Elementa Science of the Anthropocene, Vol. 7, article 55, 2019, 13 pp.)

In a spirit similar to that embodied by Parncutt’s and Seither-Preisler’s article, Ashley Dawson, an environmental humanities scholar at the College of Staten Island and the City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate Center, calls upon academia to do a lot more to decarbonize. Among his concerns is academic conference-going. Their face-to-face interactions, he acknowledges, provide many benefits, especially for scholars seeking tenure or promotion. However, he asserts, “we need to ask ourselves honestly whether these benefits are worth the staggering carbon emissions that conference-going generates. Surely it is up to those of us who are fortunate enough to have tenure to challenge the norms of our profession rather than to continue acting like members of the business class.” In addition to advocating divestment from fossil fuels, he suggests that online, low-carbon conferences—he cites a model developed at the University of California, Santa Barbara—are one way to challenge those norms. (See Ashley Dawson, “Academia and Climate Change,” Social Text Online, August 2, 2019.)

Shahzeen Attari, David Krantz, and Elke Weber have followed up their article from 2016 that demonstrated that climate researchers who fly frequently and consume a lot of energy at home are less credible with the public. Reflecting back, the authors characterize the results as “troubling” due to the fact “that most climate scientists, by virtue of the current practices of their profession, have a carbon footprint significantly higher than that of the general public.” The new publication builds on the previous findings. Their data demonstrates that the size of the co2 footprint of individuals advocating for low-emissions policies “massively affect[s]” not only “their credibility and intentions of their audience to conserve energy” but also the willingness of the audience to support public policies championed by “climate communicators.”  Because those who call for for energy conservation and co2-reducing policies “must expect ad hominem arguments based on their own energy use,” it is imperative that they are seen as pursuing such practices in their own lives. The good news, the authors find, is that advocates who lose credibility because of large co2 footprints can regain it if they reform their behavior. (See Shahzeen Z. Attari, David Krantz, and Elke U. Weber, “Climate change communicators’ carbon footprints affect their audience’s policy support,” Climatic Change, June 2019, Volume 154, Issue 3-4: 529–545.)

One reason that high-flying academic mobility continues—this despite marked advances in virtual communication technologies—is that dominant discourse in the academy constructs such mobility as “essential” to the successful career, argue an international team of researchers. Interrogating a study sample of academic staff at University of Otago in New Zealand, the authors employ a lens of gender. Their aim is “to examine the subtle differences in language that create differing realities with regards to gender and obligations of care in academic mobility decisions.” They find tensions between a hegemonic discourse that elevates mobility as key to career advancement and a heteronormative one relating to parenting and care obligations. Together, they “render parenting and a ‘good’ academic career as incompatible, particularly for female academics.” In the end, the authors call for more research, Given the normalization of hypermobility at most universities, the authors call for more research to understand how such expectations are challenged and resisted, not least by those who seek to reduce their professional travel. (See Scott Cohen,  Paul Hanna, James Higham, Debbie Hopkins,  Caroline Orchiston, “Gender discourses in academic mobility,” Gender, Work & Organization, 2019, 17 pp.; DOI: 10.1111/gwao.12413)

Four geographers from Durham University and Lancaster University (United Kingdom) have assessed the CO2 emissions associated with U.S. war-making across the globe by focusing on the Pentagon’s supply chains, particularly “the acquisition and distribution of staggering volumes of fuel.” They find that the U.S. military consumes more fuel than many medium-sized countries. Furthermore, were the Pentagon a country, its annual fuel consumption would be between those of Peru and Portugal, making it the forty-seventh-largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions in the world. This does not count “emissions from the electricity and food the military consumes, land use changes from military operations, or any other source of emissions.” The “bulk” of the fuel consumed—and thus the associated greenhouse gas emissions—is jet fuel. Among the authors conclusions is that “social movements concerned with climate change must be every bit as vociferous in contesting US military interventionism.” Given the centrality of controlling access to, and ensuring the flow of, oil to U.S. military strategy—which points to how U.S. militarism is key to making possible academic jet-setting and its reliance on high oil consumption—these findings highlight another dimension of the importance of FlyingLess. (See Oliver Belcher, Patrick Bigger, Ben Neimark, and Cara Kennelly. “Hidden carbon costs of the ‘everywhere war’: Logistics, geopolitical ecology, and the carbon boot‐print of the US military, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, June 2019, 16 pp.; DOI: 10.1111/tran.12319)