When I first heard most Cambridge colleges had travel grants I was in awe: who doesn’t love free money, and what better way to return to the places I loved in my year out now that I had the financial means? However, after dreaming up plans of sipping out of coconuts with my crisp dollar bills from Cambridge in Cambodia, the ever present environmental guilt started to creep in.

Normally I detest the idea of flying (a principle thinly wavering over the past year as, self-reproaching, I stepped onto long haul flights), but the idea of being given money to do so had briefly created a ‘free pass’ in my head.

“Travel grants enable unethical travel decisions, actions that will later form the travel habits of graduates”

With the risk of stating the obvious, air travel should not be a decision taken lightly; according to estimations by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy a long-haul flight produces equivalent impacts to 102g of CO2 per passenger each kilometre. Even optimistic predictions suggest the aviation sector’s impact will double by 2050. It is imperative Cambridge curbs its own emissions. Travel grants enable unethical travel decisions, actions that will later form the travel habits of graduates, who are more likely to go on to be part of the frequent flyers of tomorrow.

An investigation by Varsity found that over the last academic year, five colleges spent in excess of £100,000 awarding travel grants. Whilst equal opportunity to travel should be available regardless of financial situation, there is a certain irony that money is being claimed to expand students’ ‘understanding of the world’ when in reality Cambridge students can choose to embody the epitome of privilege: causing vast emissions volunteering abroad in the name of social good.

In many instances, this stems from deeply self-serving requirements students must fulfil for funds, conforming to comical stereotypes of ‘finding yourself’ through its focus on individual exploration. Many funds, such as The Gladstone Memorial Trust for example, emphasise they are unlikely to fund projects “when the main aim is subsidy to the local community rather than independent travel by the applicant”. Similarly, it is difficult to argue that Selwyn’s Medical Mission Fund for Christian medical missionary trips, or Johns’ C W Brasher fund preferencing those travelling to “wilder” parts of the world are not predicated on the applicant’s own beliefs and desires.

“When the benefit to the participant is seen to outweigh the actual impact of the carbon intensive travel, the environment will always lose out”

It is not in the spirit of ‘understanding the world’ to visit communities within our own self-centered bubble of personal ‘growth’. Students may return having felt they completed the funds’ aims of gaining ‘maturity’, but it is singularly naive to abstract oneself from the real world impact of those actions. The prioritisation of individual journeys at times falls into the ‘white saviour’ mentality, whereby the participant’s own feelings become the focus of participation with members of a community. This detached philosophy sheds light on how the environment is also easily disregarded; when the benefit to the participant is seen to outweigh the actual impact of the carbon intensive travel, the environment will always lose out.

Many of these trusts are centuries old, lacking today’s knowledge of the current dire state of the climate. As for a solution, I do not argue that colleges should pay out less. If anything, it might be the opposite: If colleges can afford to cash out large sums then they can make further commitments to rewarding students for ethical travels. Weighting should be placed on the environmental impact and ethical considerations of an application.

Some positive action has already been taken. The University set targets for reducing business travel emissions by 25% against 2014/15 levels by 2024/25 in its 2018 Carbon Reduction Strategy. Under the adopted carbon offsetting policy, staff and students are “strongly encouraged” to offset emissions associated with their travel.

However, the 2019 Environmental Sustainability Report showed no progress on reducing emissions from flights to the previous year, and post-Covid targets have not been met. Offsetting, a practice already under scrutiny for being ineffectual at reversing effects of air travel, is currently only voluntary. Some research funding, such as the Wellcome travel fund, covers the additional cost incurred for environmental travel or provides an allowance for offsetting. However, many funds do not have the same consideration.

Surely, the University could employ more self-awareness than a few forgotten sentences encouraging students to consider the environment. The plurality in Cambridge’s college system means more substantial initiatives, such as Kings’ Sustainable Travel Policy which commits to providing additional funding for sustainable transport, are not widespread. In absence of an enforceable centralised framework provided by the university, different colleges provide varying levels of commitment.

Without adequate financial motivation, the planet will continue to be sidelined. Now, feeling stuck choosing between staying local and guiltily leaning into the ‘gap yah’ stereotype, I continue to remind myself that we can all do better, starting with travel grants.

Want to share your thoughts on this article? Send us a letter to letters@varsity.co.uk or by using this form.