Climate researcher fired after choosing to avoid air travel for ethical reasons
Gianluca Grimalda, a climate researcher linked to the University of Kiel, reported that he was dismissed after declining air travel. Two weeks earlier, the employer issued a strict deadline to return to the Kiel office within five days, warning that ongoing absence could jeopardize his position.
Grimalda outlined his fieldwork as essential since March 2023, concentrating on the social effects of climate change in Bougainville, an island off the coast of Papua New Guinea. He noted that the research demanded extensive travel and exposed the team to a range of risks, from natural disasters to security concerns, which in turn caused delays in returning to Europe. Nevertheless, his choice to travel by air was made only after careful consideration and was presented as an ethical necessity.
For more than a decade, Grimalda has practiced conscientious objection to flying. While his employer previously encouraged reduced travel, he emphasizes that he is not boycotting flights entirely but will board a plane only when no other viable option exists. To reach Germany, he chose a route that included a cargo ship, a ferry, a train, and a bus.
Many ask why a low-carbon travel approach matters so deeply to him. Scientists point to three central reasons. First, Grimalda argues that avoiding air travel aligns with a moral obligation to reduce emissions. Aviation remains a major contributor to greenhouse gases and has links to rising temperatures and more extreme weather events worldwide. For example, a 32-hour flight from Papua New Guinea to Germany can produce approximately 5.3 tons of CO2 per passenger, while slow travel may yield around 420 kilograms, roughly twelve times less. He contends that in the present climate emergency, emitting about 4.9 tonnes of CO2 to speed a return to Europe is untenable.
Second, Grimalda pledged to the 1,800 participants in his Bougainville study that he would continue a low-carbon economic approach. He noted sensitivities rooted in the region’s turbulent colonial history and indicated that his identity and experiences sometimes invite scrutiny. He stressed that he does not want to be seen as negligent in his responsibilities or misrepresented in his work.
The third reason centers on hope. He believes his actions could contribute to a broader shift away from selfishness, greed, and apathy, factors that climate advocates identify as major barriers to addressing runaway climate change. His aim is to model behavior that harmonizes scientific integrity with environmental responsibility.
Ultimately, Grimalda reported that his employment status changed as a result of his travel choices. The incident sheds light on ongoing debates about how researchers conduct fieldwork, how risk is managed, and how scientific commitments are balanced with personal and ethical considerations in a warming world.
Note: The discussion touches on larger themes in climate science and how institutions respond to research methods that prioritize environmental concerns. The broader context of this dispute connects to regional histories and the evolving expectations placed on scientists working in diverse locations.