The paradoxical story of Gianluca Grimalda:environmental scientist fired for being too consistent

Gianluca Grimalda is an Italian researcher who has worked for the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW) for ten years, but yesterday he was notified of his dismissal.The reason?Having acted consistently with the results of research linking air travel to CO2 emissions and therefore to global warming.To return from Papua New Guinea - where he was studying the impact of climate change on the local population - Grimalda refused to take the plane, choosing to return the same way he left:traveling 22 thousand km on board ships, ferries, trains and coaches, a choice thanks to which he would have saved three tons of carbon emissions.But the German Institute ordered him to return by plane, a request to which Grimalda reiterated his refusal together with his willingness to give up his salary for the travel period, while continuing to work remotely while traveling.All useless:the IfW notified him of his dismissal.

Grimalda learned of the possibility of being fired while on the island of Bougainville, Papua New Guinea – one of the areas most vulnerable to the impacts of global warming.The expert had been there for about six months, to complete a project social research work on the impact of globalization and climate change on the local population - the study involved a sample of more than 1800 participants, coming from 30 different villages.On 29 September Kiel asked Grimalda to return to Germany quickly, taking a plane:within the scope of three subsequent days the man would have had to be found behind his usual desk - even if all his activities could continue to be carried out remotely - under penalty of dismissal.

An order that the researcher refused outright, for various reasons.First:the reason given to him by the company, according to which his job had to end a few weeks earlier.The original agreement in fact provided for the expert to leave the island on September 10th - and for the studies to end in July.Deadlines that Grimalda was unable to meet because he was forced to face a series of inevitable vicissitudes, such as kidnapping by a group of bandits armed with machetes, the loss of work items and the difficulties in establishing a relationship of trust with communities.(Among other things, how told in an interview, to 'make up' for the delay the expert offered "to go on unpaid leave for the duration of the trip or in any case for the time the company deems most appropriate.But they also rejected this offer of mine."Second, but not least, the obligation to fly.

Grimalda's intent was (and is) instead to return to Europe in the same way he left, that is, by completing the same route backwards.A journey almost two months long, covering around 22 thousand km on board ships, ferries, trains and coaches - a choice that avoids flying and allows him to save more than 3 tons of carbon emissions.He had also published the planned travel route on social media.

My #SlowTravel from Germany🇩🇪 to PNG🇵🇬 for fieldwork research has started.I plan to travel 39,000km on land and sea rather than✈️ to reduce my carbon footprint.My trip will reduce CO2 by 6,7tons compared to✈️-albeit still emitting 2,7tons.Here you can follow daily updates.1/🧵 pic.twitter.com/3akG7FxTs6

— dr.gianluca grimalda (@GGrimalda) February 16, 2023

On the other hand, that of impacting as little as possible when returning home was a promise that Grimalda himself had made to the inhabitants of the island during the speeches held to explain to them how much the industrialized world is contributing to environmental disasters that have happened and will happen in the area.«It is absurd for a research institute to fire a researcher for having carried out his work too diligently and for having avoided flying during a climate emergency", he commented Julia Steinberger, climate change expert and author of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Sixth Assessment Report.

An even more paradoxical situation if you look at the data.These they say that global air transport – including freight and passenger transport – represents 1.9% of all greenhouse gas emissions (not just CO2), 2.5% of CO2 emissions and which contributes 3.5% to overheating of the Earth.So much so that planes emit about 100 times more carbon dioxide per hour than a bus or train journey.

Although a lot of research and investment is being put into developing more sustainable fuels that are suitable for aviation, many experts say that even if we have a certain amount of them, it would still be quite difficult to have enough to fly all the planes that every day they take off from thousands of airports distributed throughout the world.It could be more productive, however, upgrade the rest of the means of transport, make them more efficient and widely distributed - so as to discourage, for example, those who have to travel short distances to take a plane.

To truly reduce the polluting impact of the aviation sector, in fact, it is necessary to invest in different, already existing solutions and limit as much as possible completely empty and short-haul flights, which are often superfluous or easily replaceable, but among the most polluting.

[by Gloria Ferrari]