The Kiel Institute is threatening to fire climate researcher Gianluca Grimalda, who is conducting field research in Papua New Guinea, because he refused to take a plane as a means of transport to Germany.
Gianluca Grimalda is a senior researcher at the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW) in Germany. He conducted six months of fieldwork in Bougainville, Papua New Guinea (PNG), examining the relationship between globalization, climate change and social cohesion.
Mr. Grimalda is also an environmental activist who has taken climate action with Scientist Rebellion, and he practices low-carbon travel to his research sites. This requires choosing alternative means of transport to flying, as the latter emits high greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which are responsible for global warming, which in turn is responsible for the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.
He plans to return to Europe without a flight, boarding cargo ships, ferries, trains and buses. This would reduce emissions by a factor of 10, as four tonnes of greenhouse gases would be emitted when flying, compared to 400kg when traveling slowly.
Threatening to be dismissed from the institute
Nevertheless, on Friday, September 29th, the IfW issued an official warning that the presence of Dr. Grimalda in Kiel on Monday, October 2nd, making it mandatory to fly. If he doesn’t show up at the IfW, he will be fired. The IfW justifies this decision with the need to adhere to the original plan for the duration of the research work, as the approval for the period of absence ended on September 10th.
The duration of Dr. Grimalda’s field research extended longer than expected due to several security threats that interrupted the research. At one point, former combatants set up a roadblock, captured Dr. Grimalda and his assistants, with a machete as hostages, confiscated all of Dr. Grimalda and demanded a ransom for her release. This research involved 1814 participants from 30 villages in different regions of Bougainville.
Dr. Grimalda is currently in the town of Buka in Bougainville waiting to board a cargo ship for the first part of his journey on Thursday October 8th. Here is his letter translated into French.
Letter from Gianluca Grimalda
I have just completed the most intensive fieldwork of my career. I spent six months in rural Bougainville, an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, examining the connection between exposure to globalization and climate change on the one hand and egalitarianism on the other. I came to Papua because it is an ideal environment to study this subject. Most communities live on a subsistence economy and, before the introduction of markets, were accustomed to sharing food according to egalitarian norms. However, market integration remains limited, making it possible to compare communities more or less exposed to the market economy. In addition, climate change is hitting these regions hard, as rising sea levels force coastal residents to move further inland, droughts become more intense and food becomes more scarce.
The field work was scheduled to end at the end of July, but took 45 days longer. I had to interrupt my research twice due to serious security risks. Once, former combatants of the 1990-1998 civil war set up a roadblock, took my assistants and me hostage under threat of a machete, confiscated all of my personal belongings, and demanded a ransom for their release. On another occasion we heard credible rumors that another roadblock was planned. Some employees admitted to using my debit card to withdraw the equivalent of 2,000 euros from my bank account. Many of my research items and personal items – from power banks and solar lamps to my sweater, pants and shampoo – were stolen. Some communities withdrew after being initially selected, others had to be canceled due to volcanic activity.
It takes time to build trust between communities and a “white man” (as I am always called). Therefore, many communities have asked me to explain the content of the research two or even three times before starting fieldwork. Finally, it is not surprising that this ambitious fieldwork took longer than expected. I know that many researchers would have prioritized security and flown home at the first threat. I never considered this option. My thirst for knowledge is too great. I surveyed 1,814 participants from 30 villages, ranging from coastal communities connected to the main market town by a paved road to remote communities reachable only after several hours of walking up and down the hill and across the river.
I should be happy about the completion of this fieldwork, but instead I am extremely sad. Sad because the president of my institute and the administrative director gave me an ultimatum last Friday: I have to be in Kiel next Monday or I will be fired. Being in Kiel on Monday means flying, and they know I hate it. Traveling by plane produces around 4 tonnes of CO2, the greenhouse gas responsible for global warming. On the way there, I limited my emissions to 2 tons by traveling by land and sea for 35 days, traveling 16,000 km out of 22,000. For my return trip, I plan to cover the entire route without the plane, which would limit the CO2 emissions to 400 kg, ten times less than traveling by plane.
I don’t know why my institute gave this ultimatum and punishment if I don’t follow it. It is true that according to my original plan I should have been in Kiel on September 10th. It is true that I only reported my delay to my department manager and not to the HR department. But is that enough to make me lose my job? From a legal point of view, the employer can determine the place of work and dismiss an employee if he refuses to carry out his duties. Now there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that requires my presence in Kiel. I don’t teach, I don’t have to attend seminars or other meetings. When I’m in Kiel, I spend most of my working days alone at my desk. There is nothing I have to do in Kiel that I can’t do on the ship or train while on the road. You know that I am very productive when I travel. In fact, I have never had a year as productive as this one in terms of research output.
My employer might argue that slow travel involves crossing dangerous areas like Iran and Pakistan and that he would be legally responsible for anything that might happen to me. Nevertheless, I offered to take him unpaid leave for as long as he deemed appropriate – for the entire duration of my trip or longer. This way they would have no legal liability. I have stated in writing that I release them from all responsibility for anything that happened during my trip. But it wasn’t enough. I was supposed to be in Kiel on Monday.
I am now faced with this dilemma: keep my job by denying my principles or lose my job by staying true to my principles. I know that most people would swallow the bitter pill, get on a plane and go about their work – both as professionals and as activists. My contract is fabulous in many ways. I am absolutely free to conduct any research I wish, as long as it is consistent with the mission of my institute. My salary is high (3,700 euros monthly income without taxes) and I have 30 days of vacation per year. Thanks to this job, I have enough economic stability and free time to get involved in environmental protection.
However, I think we have reached the point where instrumental rationality is no longer applicable. The latest science suggests that we have exceeded six out of nine planetary boundaries and that several ecosystems are on the verge of collapse (or probably already past it) due to rising temperatures caused by greenhouse gas emissions. According to the scenario assessment of the Hamburg Climate Futures Outlook, the goal of staying below 1.5 °C, which is seen by many scientists as the natural safety limit for our planet and is also included in the Paris Agreement, is no longer feasible. As the graphic below illustrates, the temperature rise we are experiencing is unprecedented and currently out of control.
Given this plight and what Gus Speth called the greed, indifference and apathy that characterize business and political leaders as well as the majority of the public, I believe it is appropriate to apply a deontological morality. If an action is inherently wrong, it should not be continued. For me, it is immoral to take a plane when there is a less carbon-intensive alternative. That’s wrong. The end of the story.
Of course, there is also the hope that such actions will once again raise the alarm among an inactive political power and a dormant public that appears lethargic in the face of ever-increasing extreme weather events – leaders and a public seemingly unable to see the connections and recognizing that these events are caused by one simple thing: the burning of fossil fuels. As a scientist, I feel a moral obligation to be proactive and raise the alarm. It is true that to date, hundreds if not thousands of protests have gone unnoticed and not much has changed. Nevertheless, there were “social tipping points” for many progressive social changes, and things quickly changed for the better after a critical mass of support was gathered.
Finally, there is the great disappointment of being hired by an employer who clearly does not share my values and who seems willing to demand an act of submission from me in return. It is not inconceivable that their position was ultimately caused by my involvement in previous acts of civil disobedience, which may have been seen as bringing disrepute on my institute’s name.
I know that my decision not to fly will have no impact on the environment. Many people have told me that this plane will fly even if you don’t get on it. That’s true, but if we give the airline industry less money, there may be fewer planes in the future. Regardless, all the science I know and all the evidence I see indicates that we are in an emergency situation. In an emergency situation, extraordinary measures must be taken. For this reason, it is with great sadness that I have decided not to take the plane and to bear all the consequences that arise from it. Maybe that means I have to give up what I love most in my life and have sacrificed a lot for, namely doing research. I am willing to pay this price if it helps raise awareness among the public and society’s leaders of the desperate situation we find ourselves in. It is my act of love towards present and future generations, towards endangered species, towards the idea of humanity to which I instinctively and undeservingly cling.
Some time ago I read a few lines by David Maria Turoldo. “I have the pain of being married / Never being happy / Until others are happy.” They represent me all too well. It is painful. Sometimes I wish I could turn my back on climate change. Live the remaining 30-40 years having as much fun as possible. We turn a blind eye to heat waves, floods, hurricanes and the deaths of humans and non-humans. We are turning a blind eye to the billions more deaths that will occur if temperatures rise above 1.5°C in perhaps less than a decade – a level that many climate scientists have linked to a possible collapse point for many ecosystems. I just have to go to work and have a beer afterwards. I can’t. The Greek philosopher Philolaos said, “Some minds are stronger than us.” The thought of the possible loss of civilization as we know it is pretty powerful to me. I will not accept that everything continues as usual. I won’t get on this plane.
Hangan, Bougainville, 9/30/23