Explore the vast range of titles available.

GI endoscopy is highly resource-intensive with a significant contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and waste generation. Sustainable endoscopy in the context of climate change is now the focus of mainstream discussions between endoscopy providers, units and professional societies. In addition to broader global challenges, there are some specific measures relevant to endoscopy units and their practices, which could significantly reduce environmental impact. Awareness of these issues and guidance on practical interventions to mitigate the carbon footprint of GI endoscopy are lacking. In this consensus, we discuss practical measures to reduce the impact of endoscopy on the environment applicable to endoscopy units and practitioners. Adoption of these measures will facilitate and promote new practices and the evolution of a more sustainable specialty.

Introduction and AimsThe healthcare industry has a substantial carbon footprint and the recent 2022 Health and Care Act has committed the NHS to net zero carbon by 2040. In 2022, BASL published its Sustainability Strategy and committed to reduce the Association’s carbon footprint. The sustainability of different ways of presenting posters is not known. The aim of this study was, therefore, to analyse and compare the carbon footprint of three different options of organising and displaying posters during the 2022 BASL annual conference.MethodsA comparative analysis of the carbon footprint of three different models of poster display was performed using a cradle to grave process-based carbon footprinting methodology; namelyIndividual delegate printing and transporting to the venueCentral printing of all posters in the host cityElectronic displaysThis included raw material extraction, production, delivery, use and disposal of items. This was based on the 80 posters displayed. Of note only 66 of the posters displayed in Leeds were printed centrally and the analysis was split into option 2a (this scenario) and option 2b (all 80 posters printed centrally). It is important to note that local printing was on fully recycled material that was then recycled at the end of the meeting.ResultsThe carbon footprint of option 1 (individual delegate printing) was estimated at 117 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (kgCO2e); the equivalent of driving 345 miles. Option 2a had a carbon footprint of 46 kgCO2e, 40% of option 1’s carbon footprint. Option 2b reduced the footprint further to 31 kgCO2e (figure 1). Displaying 80 posters on 6 digital screens over 3 days had an estimated carbon footprint of 38 kgCO2e (or 112 miles; a return trip from London to Oxford). In all three options, the majority of the carbon footprint burden was the result of transportation of materials to and from the venue.Discussion and ConclusionsSubstantial carbon saving can be achieved by moving away from the traditional model of individual delegates printing and transporting their own posters. Surprisingly, local printing and display on poster boards had a better carbon footprint than electronic displays. In addition, this model has the added advantage of allowing researchers to continuously stand by their posters and interact/network with other meeting delegates. This data underlines the importance of not making assumptions about relative environmental impacts of current and future practices without undertaking specific analyses comparing them.