Adam Stevens, University of Western Australia and Sabine Bellstedt, University of Western Australia
Astronomers know all too well how precious and unique the environment of our planet is. Yet the size of our carbon footprint might surprise you.
Our study, released today in Nature Astronomy, estimated the field produces 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions per year in Australia. With fewer than 700 active researchers nationwide (including PhD students), this translates to 37 tonnes per astronomer per year.
Read more: Carbon footprints are hard to understand — here’s what you need to know
As a point of reference, the average Australian adult was responsible for 26 tonnes of emissions in 2019, total. That means the job of being an astronomer is 40% more carbon-intensive than the average Australian’s job and home life combined.
While we often defer to governments for climate policy, our global carbon footprint can be dramatically reduced if every industry promotes strategies to reduce their own footprint. For individual industries to make progress, they must first recognise just how much they contribute to the climate emergency.
Where do all the emissions come from?
We found 60% of astronomy’s carbon footprint comes from supercomputing. Astronomers rely on supercomputers to not only process the many terabytes of data they collect from observatories everyday, but also test their theories of how the Universe formed with simulations.
Frequent flying has historically been par for the course for astronomers too, be it for conference attendance or on-site observatory visits all around the world. Prior to COVID-19, six tonnes of annual emissions from flights were attributed to the average astronomer.
An estimated five tonnes of additional emissions per astronomer are produced in powering observatories every year. Astronomical facilities tend to be remote, to escape the bright lights and radio signals from populous areas.
Some, like the Parkes radio telescope and the Anglo-Australian Telescope near Coonabarabran, are connected to the electricity grid, which is predominately powered by fossil fuels.
Others, like the Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory in Western Australia, need to be powered by generators on site. Solar panels currently provide around 15% of the energy needs at the Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory, but diesel is still used for the bulk of the energy demands.
Finally, the powering of office spaces accounts for three tonnes of emissions per person per year. This contribution is relatively small, but still non-negligible.
They’re doing it better in Germany
Australia has an embarrassing record of per-capita emissions. At almost four times the global average, Australia ranks in the top three OECD countries for the highest per-capita emissions. The problem at large is Australia’s archaic reliance on fossil fuels.
A study at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Germany found the emissions of the average astronomer there to be less than half that in Australia.
The difference lies in the amount of renewable energy available in Germany versus Australia. The carbon emissions produced for each kilowatt-hour of electricity consumed at the German institute is less than a third pulled from the grid in Australia, on average. https://www.youtube.com/embed/qHkTaoQvc7A?wmode=transparent&start=0
The challenge astronomers in Australia face in reducing their carbon footprint is the same challenge all Australian residents face. For the country to claim any semblance of environmental sustainability, a swift and decisive transition to renewable energy is needed.
Taking emissions reduction into our own hands
A lack of coordinated action at a national level means organisations, individuals, and professions need to take emissions reduction into their own hands.
For astronomers, private arrangements for supercomputing centres, observatories, and universities to purchase dedicated wind and/or solar energy must be a top priority. Astronomers do not control the organisations that make these decisions, but we are not powerless to effect influence.
Read more: Climate explained: what each of us can do to reduce our carbon footprint
The good news is this is already happening. A recent deal made by Swinburne University to procure 100% renewable energy means the OzSTAR supercomputer is now a “green machine”.
CSIRO expects the increasing fraction of on-site renewables at the Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory has the potential to save 2,000 tonnes of emissions per year from diesel combustion. And most major universities in Australia have released plans to become carbon-neutral this decade.
As COVID-19 halted travel worldwide, meetings have transitioned to virtual platforms. Virtual conferences have a relatively minute carbon footprint, are cheaper, and have the potential to be more inclusive for those who lack the means to travel. Despite its challenges, COVID-19 has taught us we can dramatically reduce our flying. We must commit this lesson to memory.
Read more: The carbon footprint of tourism revealed (it’s bigger than we thought)
And it’s encouraging to see the global community banding together. Last year, 11,000 scientists from 153 countries signed a scientific paper, warning of a global climate emergency.
As astronomers, we have now identified the significant size of our footprint, and where it comes from. Positive change is possible; the challenge simply needs to be tackled head-on.
Adam Stevens, Research Fellow in Astrophysics, University of Western Australia and Sabine Bellstedt, Research Associate in Astronomy, University of Western Australia
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Don’t forget veterinarians and travel agents.
Ah, but don’t forget that we need more CO2, not less to increase our food supply as Sol goes into a Grand Minimum and we cool.
It’s a win-win. We get to know more about the Universe and also have more CO2 = Plant Food.
The study is totally unacceptable. Nowhere does it touch LGBTQ or minorities.
Does it have the BLM “stamp and bully” seal of approval.?
Next up.. analysis of how much more “carbon emissions” climate scientists create than the average Australian.
“… analysis of how much more “carbon emissions” climate scientists create than the average Australian.”
Good point!
It is odd that nobody has done a study of how much “Carbon Emissions” are created when running all of those Climate Models on super computers.
Or how many tons of CO2 are produced traveling to all those serious climate science meetings around the world. After all we can’t just ZOOM around, can we?
Who cares how much any person or country, etc. puts out in terms of CO2, if CO2 is not driving changes in climate or temperature?? Fool’s errand.
True, but it does serve to highlight the blatant hypocrisy of the “rules for thee but not for me” crowd.
“An estimated five tonnes of additional emissions per astronomer are produced in powering observatories every year.”
How many people have jobs where the factories/offices are not “powered”?
“Solar panels currently provide around 15% of the energy needs at the Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory”
Yea, solar cells don’t work so well at night.
Good, radio astronomy is done at any hour since the sun doesn’t affect it much unless you are pointing pretty close to it. So that gives them ~8 hours of operation.
Personally I just got my eyes back in a front facing position because I eye-rolled so hard at the article. Who cares about CO2 and its footprints. We will actually do better if it gets warmer anyway, and there are no justifications for the positive reinforcement numbers. +3C from the depth of the little ice age is a nothing-burger.
I was laughing so hard that I missed that.
I bet they won’t get rid of the diesel generator, you know, just in case…
The solution is obvious: nuclear power. A separate, small (relatively) one for the supercomputing center.
I noticed the article praised German astronomers having lower carbon dioxide emissions than Australian because of Germany’s higher use of renewables for electricity generation. But no mention of French astronomers probably having even lower emissions because of France’s electricity generation primarily from nuclear fuel. Mum’s the word on nuclear.
I you are concerned about your carbon footprint, throw the Odour-Eaters away.
Just export the astronomy to Chile.
How many astronomers actually believe in the CO2 climate catastrophe?
Good point…astronomers are critical thinkers, and probably have it figured out that CO2 isn’t the problem it is made out to be , although pollution sure is. But I would imagine they have to keep quiet too, or they won’ have a job studying the stars. Anyways, astronomy is a very important field to the furthering of human knowledge, and is useful ‘carbon’ put to good use to study the heavens. They certainly get a pass from me and many others for their lonely job of figuring out how the universe works. Keep up all the good work, all you astronomers out there, and don’t worry about your ‘carbon’ footprint. Your discoveries may provide new technologies that will add to the collective wealth of information and data about the real world.
Carbon Footprint another misnomer, unless you walk barefoot over hot coals!
(that’s ignoring the other Allotropes).
Carbon & Carbon Dioxide seem to be interchanged on MSM as if no one has studied chemistry; we don’t say Hydrogen footprint when we drink water now do we!?
Actually some Alarmist mentioned Methane Budget as well as Carbon budget recently – so much Non-Science has entered our shared ClimateBanter that Non-Scientists are easily mislead.
The additional carbon dioxide has increased the plant growth so much I have to get a machete and hack my way out of the house every morning.
It is getting to be a jungle out there…both literally speaking, and metaphorically. There is no doubt that things are growing much better than 160 years ago. I have pictures of the same sites from the gold rush era, and then 50 years later, then in 1950 and now including pics from all dates in between of basically the same scene. There is no doubt that things are growing more now, like on steroids. Which on balance is a very good thing overall, except when it all dries out and catches fire if it isn’t managed. Maybe a combination of a little warmer, more precipitation, and more CO2. Better than the glaciers advancing.
It is a pretty empty statement without knowing how much CO2 the production, installation and decommission contribute. – Does such calculations actually exists?
To me it sounds like when you dig a hole and wants to get rid of the excess dirt, you just dig another hole twice the size for the dirt of both holes.
Oh good Lord.
I guess astronomers are going to have to denounce carbon-stars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_star
Don’t they have any other concerns ?
Human respiration produces 2 times the CO2 amount of circulation, so what ?
CO2 circulation
Great and precise expression.
Can we all stop doing stuff! or just die, we’ve got a planet to save….
That’ what Hanoi Jane was suggesting a few days ago. Loydo volunteered to go first.
The problem is, she lost the instruction manual.
What the heck is an “average Australian” ?
Everybody knows, how averages are calculated. so what do they mean ?
171 cm
76 kg
Cool, I am above average. 🙂
So is an inner city Melbourne gender fluid vegan an outliner?
Are you sure this is not a story about Astrologers? and not Astronomers? There is an inexplicable lack of science in the story, so I’m thinking Astrologers.
But 11,000 scientists signed a paper so it’s all good.
Who will manage the promised solar farm in orbit?
I remember that! About 1980 annual meeting of the Division for Planetary Sciences, there was a presentation that it would take about 30 years to put enough solar collectors in orbit to replace most of the then-operating electricity power plants. I saw the NASA poster advocating the plan. But 30 years from 1980 is 10 years in the past from now, and still no solar farm in orbit.
And the oceans are still polluted with salt, despite Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 campaign promise to “de-salt the oceans”, a campaign promise forgotten immediately after the election.
“… they must first recognise just how much they contribute to the climate emergency.”
That is different from doing carbon accounting. How about demonstrating conclusively (not by consensus opinion), that CO2 is the driving force behind the last 12,000 years of warming? How about even demonstrating that it is anthropogenic CO2 that is driving the measured increase in lower tropospheric CO2?
Hair shirt time.
“But we’re doing it for the good of humanity”.
At least the carbon footprint of the astronomers’ work leads to something scientifically useful.
It would be interesting to know the “carbon footprint” due to all computer climate modelling, which yields
mostly unusable GIGO data.
This “study” has a humongoid carbon nonsenseprint.
25,000 tonnes total for the field of astronomy.
26 tonnes per adult in Australia.
How many adults (over 15 yrs old) are in Australia? Approximately 20,000,000?
Total tonnes of the adult population is 520,000,000?
What percent of that does the field of astronomy represent?
Does it matter?
Good point. What’s more is if those 700 astronomers gave up astronomy and took an average job instead only 40% of that already minuscule 25,000 tonnes would be saved. If you believe that CO2 emissions should be curtailed, China, which emits over 10.0 GT per year, 25 times more than all of Australia, should be a primary focus of efforts. Eliminating ALL fossil fuel consumption in Australia without addressing China would hardly make a dent. The author is clueless – he’s tilting at windmills.
The facilities in Oz produce data used by 1000s maybe 10,000s of astronomers, physicists, and others worldwide. Not fair to lay all the emissions on 700 or so locals!