The potential environmental impact of external speakers’ airplane travel to grand rounds conferences

Abstract

traveled by airplane if the distance between their home institution and ours exceeded 300 miles [1,2]. To estimate the CO 2 emissions for each speaker's air-travel [1, 3], we used the Carbon Footprint Calculator [4] and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Carbon Emissions Calculator [5]. Emissions are presented in metric tons (mTon). ResultsOf the 101 MGR during the observation period, 60 were by external speakers (n = 29 in-person; n = 31 virtual). Due to proximity to our institution, 6 speakers (n = 1 inperson, n = 5 virtual) were excluded. Also excluded were 2 virtual speakers whose home institutions were so distant (Johannesburg South Africa and Paris France) that it is unlikely that they would have traveled to our medical center solely to give MGR. The distance between institutions was 879 ± 553 miles for in-person speakers and 774 ± 373 miles for virtual speakers (p = 0.94; Mann-Whitney test). Using the ICAO calculator, in-person speakers generated a total of 8.6 mTon of CO 2 emissions and virtual speakers would have generated 9.1 mTon. The Carbon Footprint Calculator estimated total CO 2 emissions of in-person speakers as 11.7 mTon and that of virtual speakers, had they traveled to give their MGR inperson, as 11.1 mTon.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Medical Grand Rounds Attendance: Comparison of In-Person and Remote Conferences

“…Overall faculty attendance at MGR remained constant regardless of conference format, suggesting no disadvantage to the remote format. In addition, there may be substantial cost savings [ 6 ] and beneficial environmental impacts [ 7 ] associated with the remote format as it pertains to external speakers, who comprised the majority (60/101, 59.4%) of this cohort.…”