Reflections on Low-Carbon Travel in SHARE

Earlier this year, SHARE co-PI Gabby was set to attend a conference in Zurich and found herself confronting a perhaps familiar dilemma: to fly or not fly? 

Travelling from London to Zurich by plane generates far more carbon emissions than taking the train.  By train the CO₂ emissions are measured in the tens of kilograms, whereas flying the same trip emits hundreds of kilograms. At the same time, flying is significantly cheaper (assuming similar dates and advance booking times, round trip London to Zurich flights are around £150 to £200 compared to about £300 for round trip train tickets) and quicker (flight time is about 90 minutes compared to almost 8 hours by train).  

Gabby’s dilemma is not unique. There has been extensive debate on the question of whether and under what circumstances academics should travel by plane to conferences.  For a community like SHARE, looking to reduce the environmental footprint of health research, it raises an important question about our own research practices. But this question does not lead to an easy answer. In a diverse research group, with women with caring responsibilities in leading positions, how do we align our environmental ethics with other obligations that we have as researchers and individuals?

We brought this question to one of our plenary sessions and took some time to reflect on it. This is what came out of our reflection.

When the Greener Choice Isn’t the Easiest Choice 

To start with, we need to consider the higher costs of taking the train and how they impact our research budget (including whether we have budgeted for it in the project proposal phase). Even when academic funding accounts for the higher cost of low-carbon travel, it won't cater for the practical implications of this form of travel. In fact, there are several barriers to choosing lower carbon travel.  

Firstly, when flying is not only cheaper than taking the train, but quicker and simpler, taking the train almost always means longer trips. This means that work commitments are more likely to limit the frequency with which people can attend conferences. This may not be a problem for more senior academics, but it may affect more junior scholars who need to gain visibility and build their academic networks. 

Moreover, health conditions make long train journeys difficult or even impossible for some people. Hours of travel, multiple changes, or the physical demands of carrying luggage through stations are not equally feasible for everyone. Another issue is caring responsibilities. Travelling by train instead of flying can add one or two additional days to a trip. For those who look after children, elderly parents, or dependents with additional needs, a longer absence may simply not be manageable.  

What appears to be a sustainable choice on paper may, in lived experience, place disproportionate pressure on certain groups—early career scholars, people with chronic health conditions, people with caring responsibilities. 

For a project like SHARE—committed to responsible use of resources and to ensuring that no team member is disadvantaged by avoidable barriers, whether financial or practical, there are genuine tensions between sustainability ideals and budgetary or practical constraints. 

Existing research bears out the issues our reflections have uncovered – on care and conference travel, on train travel and health and on the perceived advantages to researchers of attending conferences in person. 

Introducing SHARE Reflections 

This discussion led to an important realisation: conversations like these are valuable in their own right. They reveal the messiness, the trade-offs, and the human realities behind sustainability decisions. And they capture the thoughtful, reflexive, and collaborative spirit that defines SHARE. 

To recognise this, we are launching “SHARE Reflections”, a series of short pieces that record the questions, dilemmas, and insights that arise as we navigate sustainability in the course of our research. These reflections will document the real discussions happening within our community—conversations where environmental ideals meet personal circumstances, structural inequalities, ethical concerns, and practical constraints. As SHARE members continue to explore perceptions around environmentally sustainable health research, these reflections will help us stay rooted in everyday experience, acknowledging both the possibilities and the complexities of trying to work more sustainably.