Existential and Global Catastrophic Risk, defined by Beard et al 2020 as risk that may result in the very worst catastrophes “encompassing human extinction, civilizational collapse and any major catastrophe commonly associated with these things.” As such, it has been the topic of work by many philosophers as we move into a world where humans have more and more power over the world around us.

However, geoscientists have typically neglected the study of these risks, and have in turn been neglected in the field of existential risk studies. I will discuss the ethical importance of reducing existential risk from a variety of different ethical frameworks, and how this links to the concepts in geoethics. I will then discuss some of the opportunities for geoscientists to contribute to the reduction of these risks, including some of the work that has been done by geoscientists to identify and reduce existential risk and increase civilisational resilience, as well as how methodological expertise of different geoscience disciplines can contribute to the growing corpus of theoretical work around existential risk.

How to cite: Futerman, G.: The Ethics and Role of Geoscientists in Existential Risk Studies, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-10097, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-10097, 2023.

Paul Crutzen’s concept of the Anthropocene in Nature in 2002 stressed that “a daunting task [lay] ahead for scientists and engineers to guide society towards environmentally sustainable management” and that “this will require appropriate human behaviour at all scales”. The proposal by the Anthropocene Working Group of the International Commission on Stratigraphy’s Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy for an ‘Anthropocene Epoch’ with an isochronous mid-20^th century start has been recently challenged by another group of researchers. Mindful of the diachronous impacts of human evolution, they favor a much longer and still ongoing ‘Anthropocene Event’.

In sync with IUGS goals to promote public understanding of the Earth and contribute to international policy decisions, the Anthropocene debate offers an unprecedented opportunity for the geoscience profession to become proactively relevant to the UN’s next-step vision for Planet Earth. Arguably, its 2015-2030 agenda of 17 Sustainable Development Goals each focused on a facet of society and the environment needs a more holistic successor with realistic thinking about sustainability, “one of the most overused and ill-defined words in conversations about the environment” in the view of Andrew Revkin at Columbia University’s Earth Institute. Ideally, the UN’s successor plan would be aligned with the interdependent subsystems of the Earth-Human System and propelled by transdisciplinary involvement of the sciences and humanities.

Echoing an observation by Stanley Finney and Lucy Edwards in GSA Today in 2016 that the terms Anthropocene and Renaissance have similar characteristics as “richly documented, revolutionary human activities”, an ‘Anthropocene Renaissance’ would highlight the need for greater harmony among and between environmental and societal movements. In this vision, the past-framed ‘Anthropocene Event’ underpins the future-framed ‘Anthropocene Renaissance’ as a boldly integrated effort to ‘protect our planet’, one of twelve commitments made by world leaders in 2020 at the UN’s 75^th Anniversary Meeting. In a profile of the Anthropocene debate in The New York Times on 18 December 2022, the conclusion featured my interview: “I always saw it not as an internal geological undertaking but rather one that could be greatly beneficial to the world at large”. The UN’s ‘Summit of the Future: Multilateral Solutions for a Better Tomorrow’ will take place in New York City on 22-23 September 2024.

How to cite: Koster, E.: Defining the Anthropocene for the greatest good as an Event-based Renaissance, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-6182, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-6182, 2023.

We desire to know out of different motivations. According to Aristotle, scientists can feel happy or eudaimon when they fulfill the final cause of humans, reasoning, by providing knowledge. Freud argued that infants start to learn in order to distinguish between conditions that cause them pain or pleasure. We want to increase chances of achieving desired outcomes and avoiding undesired outcomes of our decisions by understanding causalities between events and predicting future events. In Geoscientific contexts, we may want to understand nature in order to satisfy different desires such as physical and psychological comforts, ethical dignity and continuation of existence, which are inseparable from but also conflict often against each other. We seek optimal decisions by means of the Geoscientific knowledge amidst the conflicting desires and natural conditions that hamper the desires.

All formations in the universe and all our perceptions are impermanent. Buddhism views that the course of life in which one is born, ages, gets ill and dies is suffering, if one clings to satisfactions, existence or non-existence as they are impermanent. A human being is seen in Buddhism as an ever-changing flux comprised of body (rupa in Pali language), senses (vedana), perceptions (sanna), volitions (sankhara) and consciousness (vinnana), or the five aggregates (khandha). Lasting peacefulness can be experienced when one understands the impermanence of its five aggregates, or selflessness (sunnata), which is a goal of Buddhist practices.

From this Buddhist perspective, satisfactions of material needs provided by Geoscience do not last permanently. Geoscience may help humans satisfy their basic needs, but the standards of basic needs seem to be ever-growing, influenced often by materialism which overlooks spiritual sources of happiness and technocentric hopes for sustainability in the future. According to Buddhism, our experiences and actions (kamma) condition our perceptions, volitions and habits, and reifying them as constant or substantial leads us to assume that certain desires ‘ought’ to be met as basic living standards. However, such standards are subjective judgements that cannot be justified by factual propositions in ‘is’ forms.

It can be satisfying for scientists to perform their professional tasks of providing knowledge required for fulfilling the human needs. However, epistemic and aleatory uncertainties in Geoscience can frustrate their desire to know. Geoscientists may suffer from the frustration, if they cling to their tasks and desires, failing to see satisfactions as impermanent and uncertainties as natural processes.

It is important to note that Buddhism does not compel dogmatically ascetic life styles or nihilistic worldviews but suggests ways to cease suffering. The Threefold Training (ethics, mindfulness and wisdom), the practice methods of Buddhism, can be applied in pursuing Geoscience as opportunities to experience lasting peacefulness. Scientists can create peaceful conditions by helping others with their knowledge, and let go of their reification and desires through mindfulness and the Buddhist ontology. Studying human desires and providing honest information about uncertainties and physical boundaries of satisfying the desires would be also parts of the practice.

How to cite: Jung, H.: Buddhist thoughts on frustration of the desire the know in Geoscience, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-17116, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-17116, 2023.

Professional experiences led geoscientists initially to put together epistemic-moral hybrids [1], e.g. The Cape Town Statement on Geoethics  [2]. Then, combining geosciences and political philosophies more comprehensively, geo-philosophical assessments of human practices as part of the Earth System emerged [3] [4]. These assessments describe the Human-Earth Nexus amalgamating insights into (i) the dynamics of the Earth System; (ii) socio-historical features of human societies; (iii) philosophical appraisals of socio-political choices.

Scholars of the history of science recently developed a theory of the evolution of knowledge [5] [6] [7]. Applied to societies experiencing anthropogenic global change, they discern the concept of an ergosphere to depict the essence of the Human-Earth Nexus. “With their rapidly evolving culture, humans have introduced an “ergosphere” (a sphere of work, as well as of technological and energetic transformations) as a new global component of the Earth system, in addition to the lithosphere, the hydrosphere, the atmosphere, and the biosphere, thus changing the overall dynamics of the system.“ [6, p. 7].

The historians’ theory of evolution of knowledge offers geoscientists notions (e.g. borderline problem, economy of knowledge, and external representation) for assessing human practices, e.g. (i) a ‘borderline problem’ defined as: “problems that belong to multiple distinct systems of knowledge. Borderline problems put these systems into contact… (and sometimes into direct conflict) with each other, potentially triggering their integration and reorganisation” [7, p427]; (ii) an ‘economy of knowledge’ defined as: “societal processes pertaining to the production, preservation, accumulation, circulation, and appropriation of knowledge mediated by its external representation” [7, p.429]; (iii) an ‘external representation’ defined as: “any aspect of the material culture or environment of a society that may serve as an encoding of knowledge” [7, p. 224].

Concluding: (i) taking a geo-philosophical perspective means, per se, specifying a borderline problem, an economy of knowledge, and an external representation; (ii) the theoretical findings of the history of science offer a standardised methodology for geo-philosophical studies, namely asking: What borderline problem? What economy of knowledge? What external representation? Responses will discern sharper the socio-historical features of geo-philosophical topics, be it geoheritage or the Human-Earth-Nexus.

[1] Potthast T (2015) Toward an Inclusive Geoethics—Commonalities of Ethics in Technology, Science, Business, and Environment. In: Peppoloni MW (ed) Geoethics. Elsevier, pp 49–56

[2] Di Capua G, Peppoloni S, Bobrowsky P (2017) The Cape Town Statement on Geoethics. Ann Geophys 60:1–6. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7553

[3] Di Capua G, Bobrowsky PT, Kieffer SW, Palinkas C (2021) Introduction: geoethics goes beyond the geoscience profession. Geol Soc London, Spec Publ SP508-2020–191. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP508-2020-191

[4] Bohle M, Marone E (2022) Phronesis at the Human-Earth Nexus: Managed Retreat. Front Polit Sci 4:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2022.819930

[5] Rosol C, Nelson S, Renn J (2017) Introduction: In the machine room of the Anthropocene. Anthr Rev 4:2–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019617701165

[6] Renn J (2018) The Evolution of Knowledge: Rethinking Science in the Anthropocene. HoST - J Hist Sci Technol 12:1–22. https://doi.org/10.2478/host-2018-0001

[7] Renn J (2020) The Evolution of Knowledge - Rethinking Science for the Anthropocene. Princeton University Press, Oxford, UK

How to cite: Bohle, M.: Takings from the History of Science for Geo-philosophical Studies, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-1204, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-1204, 2023.

How to cite: Fox, B., Dawson, K., Trowler, V., Briggs, S., Massey, R., Fitzsimmons, A., Marshall, T., Riesselman, C., and Davidson, A.: Geoethics: hammering out an interdisciplinary conversation, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-11580, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-11580, 2023.

Scientists remain citizens and human beings. As so, they keep their critical mind and have visions for society and opinions on related crucial issues. The climate and ecological crisis makes no exception and has become the subject of more and more discussions among scientific communities. The bond between scientific research and societal issues can be seen in the common practice of national funding agencies asking scientists to explicitly define the societal values of their research activities (the so-called “knowledge utilization”). On such occasions, scientists need to prove that their findings will bring parts of technical, scientific, social, or even political solutions to a range of stakeholders, including decision-makers. Such a peculiar position raises many issues. In democracies, scientists and other experts are usually asked to remain neutral and only provide scientific and technical knowledge to support decision-makers (i.e., governments) who will make the decision.

The question of neutrality has particularly animated scientific communities for decades. May we, as scientists, activate only the rational part of our brains when doing science and activate the emotional one when we return to our daily personal and civic life? Should we remain neutral at all costs? When "business as usual" means making the ecological and social crisis more profound, does the concept of neutrality even exist? Is that ethical if doing nothing means supporting "business as usual"? Or should we admit that this is neither doable nor desirable?

In this paper, we suggest that being neutral and inactive is neither doable nor desirable for the sake of science and society. First of all, scientists are people, and their actions cannot remain completely value-free or independent from societal influences. Instead, the notions of objectivity, scientific rigor, and transparency, which all make part of scientific integrity, may be much more relevant to define good research practices. As long as these practices are followed, many ways of communicating with peers, stakeholders, and the public sphere may be considered, from appeased recommendations to stakeholders all the way down to (illegal) civil disobedience, as those may only differ by their degree of engagement in reporting the same facts. To which the ethics of responsibility should be added: we must say what we know (Resnik and Elliot, 2016).

We collected several testimonies from scientists from the earth and climate sciences engaged in activism and civil disobedience. The description of the several types of intellectual trajectories will help us understand how scientists connect their values to science and how, at their scale, their vision helps them disseminate science to improve societies and reduce their impacts on global changes.

Resnik, D. B. and Elliott, K. C.: The Ethical Challenges of Socially Responsible Science, Accountability in Research, 23, 31–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.1002608, 2016.

How to cite: Lassabatere, L., Kuppel, S., and Vitón, Í.: Engaged scientists and the question of neutrality and integrity: illustrative intellectual trajectories of geoscientists, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-5456, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-5456, 2023.

In this presentation we discuss the role of geoscientists and engineers in advocating for improved civic science that can minimise the impacts of industrial and mining activities on the environment and downstream communities, with a particular focus on water-related impacts. We argue that, if not carefully designed, data collection, analyses and communication by geoscientists does not always contribute to the wider public good because the issues that communities care about are not addressed – so called “undone science”. A case study, focusing on the environmental impacts of the McArthur River mine (MRM) in a remote part of the Northern Territory, Australia, is used to highlight key issues that should inform civic science and lead to better outcomes for communities and the environment.

Despite thousands of pages of “data” about the MRM project and its impacts, we argue that this project is an example of the social production of ignorance – because the knowledge of the communities most impacted by the mine’s activities is not improved by the reporting and impact assessments associated with the project. Based on a temporal synthesis of independent monitoring reports of the McArthur River Mine which covered the period from 2007 to 2018, we identify three main lessons for improving civic science. Firstly, without adequate baseline monitoring prior to development, data collection during a project cannot satisfactorily assess impacts of a development. Baseline data is particularly important when seasonal and interannual variability is high. Baseline and ongoing monitoring programs should be co-designed with the community, so that what matters to the community is monitored (e.g. culturally important sites, contamination in animal species relevant to the community). Secondly, geoscientists and engineers need to partner with social scientists and local community organisations to ensure that communities are effectively informed about the impacts of development, focusing on the impacts that matter to communities, not just the impacts that are conveniently measured. Finally regulatory processes need to be improved to ensure that problems identified by geoscientists and engineers are addressed.

How to cite: Johnson, F., Higgins, P., Andersen, M., Howey, K., Kearnes, M., Khan, S., and Leslie, G.: Social production of ignorance – the role for geoscientists in addressing “undone science”, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-13910, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-13910, 2023.

The PARADeS project uses participatory approaches to contribute towards enhancing Ghana’s national flood disaster risk reduction and management strategy. The project was initiated by practitioners from Ghana and the problem setting was developed during a definition phase of the project. When the project started, commitment and strong partnership and involvement of partners were already established - a prerequisite for collaborative and non-extractive research.

Multiple workshops and focus group discussions were ‘successfully’ conducted in collaboration with our local partners. Despite the sound basis of the project (e.g. shared goal(s), strong and committed partnership), we experienced challenges before, during and post fieldwork. In this contribution, we particularly reflect and focus on including and managing different types of participants. On the one hand, we engaged with representatives from different governmental institutions and non-governmental organizations with mostly academic background during the workshops. On the other hand, flood-affected urban and rural citizens with strongly differing educational backgrounds and socio-economic assets elaborated on their flood experiences during the focus group discussions. Here, three main themes and challenges arose:

• Selection of participants: Identifying blind spots of researchers and local partners, e.g. the risk of missing out marginalized voices,
• Expectations management: Coping with expectations of participants and communicating own room of action, and
• Feedback processes: Preventing extractive research by feedbacking information relevant to the participants

During the session, these themes are discussed using the guiding principles for fieldwork with participants (see Rangecroft et al. 2020) by highlighting ethics, communication, power dynamics and positionality. For this, we share our experiences and lessons learned e.g. how we deal with the problem of getting a gender balanced participant list or how we manage unexpected structures of focus groups. Furthermore, we would like to share our uneasiness when, for example, a focus group discussion turned into a community talk or unrealistic though understandable expectations were raised. By sharing our successes and pitfalls, we would like to contribute to a broader discussion on how to improve fieldwork, prepare for surprise and, especially, to meet expectations of participants, partners and researchers without compromising each other’s needs and integrity. 

Rangecroft, S., M. Rohse, E. W. Banks, R. Day, G. Di Baldassarre, T. Frommen, Y. Hayashi, B. Höllermann, K. Lebek, E. Mondino, M. Rusca, M. Wens and A. F. Van Loon (2020). "Guiding principles for hydrologists conducting interdisciplinary research and fieldwork with participants." Hydrological Sciences Journal: 1-12.

How to cite: Höllermann, B. and Ntajal, J.: Managing participants, expectations and surprises during fieldwork – Experiences from collaborative flood risk management in Ghana, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-207, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-207, 2023.

The unprecedented acceleration of human extractions of living and mineral resources particularly after WWII and their wasteful transformation in an expanding technosphere is now estimated to exceed living matter[1]. This fossil fuel driven acceleration has led to exceeding planetary boundaries in several dimensions [2], including the on-going mass extinction of species particularly in the warming and overfished ocean. Catch reconstructions since the beginnings of global statistics in 1950 are revealing the extent of unsustainable extractions from the ocean[3]. Two decisions at global negotiations in 2022, one on harmful fishing subsidies and the landmark target 3 on the protection of 30% of ocean and land by 2030, have potential to slow down the excesses and gradually rebuild fully functional ecosystems. How can scientists enhance their contribution towards shifting the emphasis to implementation? We know from cognitive science, e.g. that excessive car speed and other forms of sensory overload stress humans and reduce quality of life while also harming the environment[4]. Yet even in the face of evidence, it has often been impossible to act decisively on this evidence. Similarly, it has so far been been difficult to overcome widespread cognitive dissonance about climate change and species extinctions in the ocean. Contrary to widely held beliefs, here it is postulated that different attitudes are not impervious to scientific information and learning. Historically these judgemental processes are not fixed, even when reinforced by social norms[5]. However, the accumulation of facts and their presentation in the scientific literature is not enough to bring about what may be considered desirable behavioural change. This is reflected in considerable effort put into policy briefs and other dissemination formats in recent years, including video and social media e.g. by the IPCC. Art of hosting and collective leadership are other proven approaches for building understanding and trust necessary to develop robust solutions through enabling collective action. In their various context-adapted formats they have been successfully deployed for joint learning and action in settings as diverse as largely illiterate small-scale fishing communities and government organisations. They could benefit research and academic institutions in their search for promoting more stakeholder engagement and fostering greater inter- and transdisciplinarity.

[1] Elhacham, E., Ben-Uri, L., Grozovski, J. et al. Global human-made mass exceeds all living biomass. Nature 588, 442–444 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-3010-5

[2] Steffen, E., Richardson, K., Rockstroem, J. et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223) (2015). DOI: 10.1126/science.1259855

[3] Pauly, D. & Zeller, D. Catch reconstructions reveal that global marine fisheries catches are higher than reported and declining. Nature Commun. 7, 10244 (2016). doi: 10.1038/ncomms10244

[4] Knoflacher, H. Zurück zur Mobilität! Anstöße zum Umdenken. Ueberreuter, Wien (2013)

[5] Sparkman, G., Howe, L., Walton, G. How social norms are often a barrier to addressing climate change but can be part of the solution. Behavioural Public Policy 5(4), 528-555 (2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.42

How to cite: Nauen, C. E.: Art of hosting approaches with greater participation of scientists can support robust solutions for increased societal resilience, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-4421, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-4421, 2023.

Groundwater resources are largely invisible and unknown to most people. Hence, unauthorized appropriation of groundwater is not obvious, and its impacts are less evident. It can be said that it is an invisible geo-resource but its impacts and problems are visible to mankind, even if often its source is not recognized. Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, is the fifth fastest-growing city in the world and rapid population growth and urbanization have created huge pressure on groundwater resources. As a result of a lack of surface water storage and the seasonal variability of river flows, Kabul is among the world's most water-stressed cities as it depends almost entirely on groundwater. The findings of scientific studies reveal that extensive groundwater depletion and degradation of groundwater quality in Kabul city is largely due to anthropogenic factors and it is likely to rapidly continue in the future, particularly in densely populated areas of the city. Here, ethics can play an important role because human behavior is among the main factors creating the problems. So, hydrogeoethical concepts can be assessed and discussed, especially for urban groundwater where human needs (social ethics) and environmental dynamics (environmental ethics) both should be respected. In this study, the most vital questions related to ethical aspects of groundwater management in Kabul city are extracted. To achieve the questions, the water ethics principles and ethical criteria were evaluated concerning the condition of groundwater and the society of Kabul city, as an exercise of applied hydrogeoethics. Finally, six questions are obtained as the result of this study. The response to these critical questions could be a key to solving many dilemmas related to groundwater management in an urban concept. It is recommended to groundwater managers and policymakers explore the answer to these questions and consider the findings in the policies, strategies, and regulations, particularly in urban regions.

The questions are as follows:

1) What is the level of contribution, obligation, responsibility, honesty, trust, and respect among geoscientists, and engineers related to groundwater management?

2) What kind of regulation is adequate for the management of over-abstraction urban groundwater; top-down or self-regulation or a mix of both?

3) How education and communication can shape moral motivation for city residents to better groundwater management?

4) What is the level of participation of public media (TV, radio, newspapers, etc.) in awareness-raising campaigns related to groundwater conditions?

5) Can groundwater abstraction from the deep aquifer (groundwater mining) be an ethical and sustainable policy concerning future generations and environmental ethics?

6) How consideration of gender equity and women's participation can be effective in the management of groundwater?

How to cite: Hussaini, M. S., Farahmand, A., and Abrunhosa, M.: Hydrogeoethical questions related to urban groundwater management: the case of Kabul city, Afghanistan, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-8072, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-8072, 2023.

VECTOR (Vectors to Accessible Critical Raw Material Resources in Sedimentary Basins) is an EU Horizon and UKRI co-funded research project assessing the social, technical, and environmental challenges to mining critical raw materials in Europe. Our commitment to geoethics is informed by the diverse partnership’s research expertise and our social science research. We will incorporate these learnings into all subsequent research and outreach programmes to promote good practice. Our dedicated ethics structure ensures that we put this commitment into practice. This approach to project ethics is a first for a Horizon Europe project.

Plans for decarbonisation presented in the EU Green Deal include achieving Net Zero by 2050 and reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels). Meeting the supply of renewable energy needed to achieve these goals requires a sharp increase in production, and a more responsible use, of critical raw materials. Recycling alone cannot meet the projected demand. Sourcing raw materials from inside the EU, where suitable environmental, social, and political regulations could be implemented, may be instrumental in securing an ethical provision of metals. However, mineral projects face complex social, environmental, and technical challenges in the EU. VECTOR will explore these challenges through social- and geoscience research, integrating the results of both research streams into easy-to-understand resources.

The VECTOR consortium is committed to ensuring the highest level of ethical standards during the project, with respect to both conduct and outputs. To put this commitment into practice, the VECTOR consortium has appointed an Ethics Advisor, responsible for advising the project on ethical matters and Chairing an Independent Ethics Committee, which will bring subject matter expertise to ethical deliberations. The Ethics Advisor and the Independent Ethics Committee sit within an ethics governance framework that interacts with, but is independent of, the Project governance framework. This ensures that ethical matters arising during the course of the Project are considered by expert, neutral third parties who are not otherwise directly invested in the Project, and that their advice is given due weight in Project decision making processes and practically implemented. This approach is a first for a Horizon Europe project, and one we hope will set the bar for strong ethical project management across the Horizon universe.

This will also be informed by our social science research to understand how stakeholders balance the ethical, social, economic, political, and environmental consequences of sourcing critical raw materials. The aim is to understand how levels of social acceptance influence attitudes, decisions and policy acceptance. Insights gained from this will inform good practice standards in our other research and be used to develop outreach tools targeting all stakeholder groups, informing their future decision making. These include policy makers and the much-overlooked public, as well as continued professional development pathways for geoscientists.

Taken together, our ethics structure and social science research provide a robust geoethics framework that will evolve with our new understandings and inform our work to investigate a socio-environmentally sustainable supply of raw materials.

How to cite: Stockey, C., Gordon, S., Clarke, R., and Lewis, E. and the VECTOR Partnership: Project VECTOR – researching challenges to mining in Europe through a robust ethics structure., EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-14481, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-14481, 2023.

Volcano engineering is the practice of altering the state of volcanic systems and/or volcanic eruptions to exploit them or mitigate their risk. Past and current examples of volcano engineering are limited but include drilling crater walls to drain volcanic lakes, channeling and bombing lava flows, siphoning off CO₂ rich volcanic lakes, and cooling lava flows with seawater. There have also been several incidental examples of drilling into magma reservoirs in search for geothermal resources in Hawaii, Iceland, and Kenya. While not causing anything more damaging than the loss of drill bits or forcing the use of alternative holes, this demonstrates that humans are increasingly able to reach volcanic plumbing systems. As the pursuit of high temperature and enhanced geothermal energy increases as the world strives for renewable energy and critical metal resources, it is also likely that such contacts will become more common. We must accept, therefore, that despite the controversial nature of this topic, geoengineering of volcanic systems is an inevitable consequence of such exploration in the coming century. Since we possess the technological and engineering potential to perturb volcanic systems, the question we ask here is, should we? Do we have the scientific knowledge to do so? What are the potential benefits to future humanity? And, what are the ways it could do more harm than good? We highlight that while volcano geoengineering has significant potential benefits, the risks and uncertainties are too great to justify its use in the short term. Even if we do not decide to conduct volcano geoengineering, we believe there is a strong ethical case to support research into the efficacy and safety of volcano geoengineering going forwards. In this work, we lay out a series of protocols and practices based on the ethical arguments to be followed should humanity decide to conduct volcano geoengineering in the future.

How to cite: Mani, L., Cassidy, M., and Sandberg, A.: The ethics of volcano geoengineering, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-12452, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-12452, 2023.

Climate change is a global threat. As such, scientific and technology organizations and funders are increasingly devoting attention and resources to climate intervention research and, in some cases, already pursuing large-scale testing. Climate intervention measures include carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and many other authoritative bodies have called for "a code of conduct" and governance structure to guide the research, potential scaling and possible deployment of these intervention measures.  This presentation will discuss a global initiative facilitated by AGU to help establish and gain support for an ethical framework to help guide such efforts, and to include various practical, ethical and governance considerations of potential climate intervention technologies to be considered before deciding potential scaled deployment of such measures – including climate justice considerations and representation.  Preliminary ethical framework modules and global engagement processes currently underway will be discussed.

How to cite: Williams, B., Hanson, B., Pandya, R., LaChance, J., and Shimamoto, M.: An Ethical Framework for Climate Intervention Research and Potential Scaling, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-16302, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-16302, 2023.

Climate change may be the most severe crisis humanity has faced to date. Both the social and natural sciences have well understood the causes and effects of climate change as well as the possible mitigation and adaptation measures. However, implementations of both mitigation and adaptation measures generally fall behind the goals defined by the Paris agreement.

With increasing political awareness and progressing federal climate protection legislation in Germany communal politics is facing the challenge of charting explicit paths to net carbon neutrality. Due to diverse social and geographic settings as well as different existing infrastructures solutions have to be tailored to the local conditions. Local climate advisory panels are a common and if well constructed an effective way to support the local administration in the necessary transformation.

Here we report on the successful efforts lead by the local group of the Scientists for Future in Frankfurt, Germany, to aid the city hall in establishing a communal climate advisory panel. Early stakeholder communication, broad alliances with local climate protection initiatives and the shared experience of the Scientists for Future network were key to successfully establish an institutionalized science-society-policy interface to permanently support local climate action activities.

How to cite: Voelker, G. S., Becherer, R., Junge, C., and Seifert, T.: From informal to institutional science-society-policy interactions: Introducing a climate advisory board in Frankfurt, Germany, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-9299, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-9299, 2023.

Nine European countries under the umbrella of the Joint Programming Initiatives on Climate (JPI Climate) and on Oceans (JPI Oceans) have set up a joint Knowledge Hub on Sea Level Rise. The ambition is to provide easy access to usable knowledge on regional-local sea level change in Europe, regularly updated as a series of periodic assessments. It will complement existing global and national assessments by providing additional geographical and contextual detail, tailored to regional, national and European policy development and implementation.

As its key product, it will deliver by the end of 2023 its first European Assessment Report on Sea level rise hazards and impacts, co-designed with European Sea stakeholders. The co-design framework is based on consultation workshops, questionnaires and a final Conference in Venice that enabled to discuss at large the regional and local end-user needs.

Based on the latest available science provided by  the IPCC AR6 WGI and II reports and using the most advanced knowledge on sea level rise from European services and research done at the national level, the Assessment report will allow to downscale to the European Seas the SLR impacts and devise adaptation strategies. We will present the user needs that were revealed by the stakeholder consultations and plan to provide a peek into the content of the first draft of this first Assessment Report.

How to cite: Pinardi, N., van den Hurk, B., Jimenez, J. A., Winter, G., Galluccio, G., Bisaro, S., Melet, A., van de Wal, R., Richter, K., Calewaert, J.-B., Bruegge, B., Pomarico, L. G., Depuydt, M., Kiefer, T., and Manderscheid, P.: The Knowledge Hub on Sea Level Rise and the science-based European Seas assessment reporting, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-8683, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-8683, 2023.

How to cite: Olano Pozo, J. X., Boqué Ciurana, A., and Aguilar, E.: Engaging stakeholders for the co-creation of Climate Services. Beyond ERA4CS INDECIS project , EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-13681, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-13681, 2023.

Even with the successful implementation of the Paris agreement, a certain amount of climate change is now unavoidable over the next few decades and high warming levels by the end of the century cannot be ruled out. Therefore, urgent action is needed to build resilience and accelerate adaptation to climate variability and change. Informing the extensive range of actions needed to manage climate risks, reduce damage without exacerbating existing inequalities, and realise emerging opportunities, is a critical scientific and societal challenge. The UK has been at the forefront of climate adaptation policy with the Climate Change Act 2008 requiring the UK Government to conduct a five-yearly Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) and National Adaptation Programme. Another important recent driver amongst UK organisations has been compliance with the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. The UK Climate Resilience (UKCR) Programme emerged as a response to these policy and societal needs. It aims to enhance the UK’s resilience to climate variability and change through frontier interdisciplinary research and innovation on climate risk, adaptation and services, working with stakeholders and end-users to ensure the research is useful and usable.

The UK Climate Resilience Programme, led by UK Research and Innovation and the UK Met Office and running from 2019 to 2023, has funded over 50 projects worth £19 million. It is part of the Strategic Priorities Fund initiative which provides research funding to develop strategically important research for the national government. Topics central to the programme’s research agenda have included improved characterisation and quantification of climate risks, enhanced understanding of the management of climate risks, and the development and delivery of climate services. Amongst its achievements, the programme has: developed a set of future UK socio-economic scenarios to be used alongside climate scenarios, delivered a step change in climate change risk assessment capability, and produced a roadmap for the development and implementation of UK climate services. It has funded arts and community based projects and pioneered an embedded researchers scheme in which the researcher collaborates with a host organisation to address their real world needs. The programme has also developed a more coherent community of climate resilience researchers and practitioners in the UK.

In this talk we will provide an overview of the programme, focusing on the nexus between UKCR–funded research, and UK policy and practice. For example, we will consider how the national CCRA process shaped the programme’s research agenda while at the same time the availability of research sets the parameters of risk assessments. We will also provide examples of co-production undertaken by researchers and practitioners and comment on what can be achieved in terms of societal resilience when there is collaboration on shared objectives. This programme is unique in dedicating significant time, funding and other resources to researching national resilience while working in close partnership with the national government. We anticipate that our learnings from this process will be of interest to other researchers, as well as policy makers and practitioners who work with researchers on climate resilience issues.

How to cite: Dessai, S., Lonsdale, K., Lowe, J., Harcourt, R., and Walton, P.: The UK Climate Resilience Programme (2019-2023), EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-15941, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-15941, 2023.

Understanding local perceptions of preparedness, risk and response to climate change is important for effective adaptation-focused actions and policy design. While there have been national surveys of the public’s concern, organisational perspectives are less studied. This research presents findings of a national survey of UK-based organisations’ perceptions about adapting to a changing climate. The survey covers awareness among organisations of climate change, its physical risks and how organisations are taking action to prepare for perceived risks. Administered in spring 2021, our survey summarises the insights of 2,400 respondents in roles related to organisational planning. The majority of respondents (69%) were from the private sector, while others came from public health authorities, local authorities, public educational establishments, and third sector or charitable organisations. 58% of respondents identified the effects of climate change as a concern. While the survey results support a picture of UK organisations taking steps to prepare for similar extreme weather events in the future, action is strongly informed by dealing with the effects of extremes already experienced. There is a much lower proportion of organisations taking measures to deal with the physical risks of future climate change. In terms of future action, organisations perceived a strong role for leadership from government and collective responsibilities for adaptation, signalling a need to recognise this in efforts to promote adaptation. These findings, though UK-centric, provide insight to societal responses, options and pathways, especially at the organisational level for the less widely studied private sector, as noted in IPCC AR6 WGII Chapter 13: Europe. 

How to cite: Dookie, D. S., Conway, D., and Dessai, S.: Organisational preparedness for the physical risks of climate change in the UK, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-851, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-851, 2023.

Climate change and malnutrition, that includes undernutrition as well as micronutrient deficiency and overweight, are among the greatest issues in the 21^st century. Acting in synergy, each of these dynamics aggravates the effects of the other, creating complex and compounding impacts that increase particularly the vulnerability of the poorest people. This so-called climate and nutrition nexus can be broadly described as the fact that climate change poses a serious threat to global nutrition security, while current food systems are contributing significantly to this warming dynamic and malnutrition is reducing people’s ability to cope with the induced changes. Therefore, climate information and science are crucial to inform both international funding institutions (especially their investment portfolios) and local decision-makers in the design and selection of comprehensive, effective and innovative strategies and actions to adapt and cope with climate change and therefore advance sustainable development at all scales.

Regarding this topic, we carried out a consultancy project funded by the ASAP II programme of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) to inform its investment portfolio on the design and implementation of interdisciplinary development strategies linking nutrition enhancement and climate change adaptation. We reviewed and analysed 7 selected IFAD ‘climate related and nutrition-sensitive projects’ in Latin America and the Caribbean. The identification of best practices and lessons learned to be cultivated, scaled-up and even mainstreamed in future projects will encourage the sustainable transformation of the food systems, increase the climate resilience of the population and fight inequalities in the region.

Our work was articulated in three stages. Firstly, a wide literature review of scientific articles and other relevant documents published to date on the climate and nutrition nexus has been carried out, as well as a review of all related project documentation. This primary data collection and analysis has been complemented by conducting semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from the projects. As part of this study, a two-day peer-to-peer sharing event was organised to assess the know-how accumulated by the participants and aimed to create an environment conducive to the exchange of knowledge and experiences, as well as to present and validate preliminary research results.

Our results are compiled in a practical guidebook that focuses on 9 main themes. The analysis allowed us to identify adaptation knowledge and solutions coming directly from the field and tested during the projects. The added value of considering the climate and nutrition nexus is to point out the numerous co-benefits of actions and practices which can both contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, and to the promotion of sustainable agricultural systems and healthy diets. The majority of the solutions identified concern: the consideration of the most vulnerable communities and populations, and in particular the empowerment of women, youth and indigenous people; governance and organisation from the global scale with South-South cooperation to the household level; and finally, the use of information from both traditional knowledge and more technical studies, as well as the implementation of climate-smart and nutrition-sensitive agriculture practices.

How to cite: Galluccio, G., Trozzo, C., Santini, M., Antonelli, M., and Espin, O.: Inform international institutions for interdisciplinary development strategies linking nutrition enhancement and climate change adaptation, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-17583, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-17583, 2023.

In the midst of climate change, academic travels - one salient aspect of the carbon footprint of research activities - are at the center of a growing concern. Mitigation options often focus on two dimensions : (i) decreasing the frequency of attendance to conferences and (ii) modal shift in transport. Here, we analyze professional travel in academia from a unique database compiling about 100 000 travels from about 150 research labs across a large array of disciplines and localities in France to detail the structure, patterns and heterogeneity of national and international research travels for research purposes. We estimate the mitigation potential of a series of options encompassing but not limited to institutional options. We show that, if short distance traveling (typically below 1000 km) are largely dominant in number, their relative mitigation potential via modal shift is small (i.e., below 15%). On the other hand, long distance traveling, which is often associated with international collaborations or field work hold a much larger mitigation potential but question the very nature of research activities. We propose ambitious sobriety options to robustly decrease travel-induced GHG emissions in academia and discuss their acceptability in the context of the French public research system.

How to cite: Aumont, O., Ben Ari, T., Mariette, J., Jeanneau, L., Spiga, A., Lefort, G., Roche, P.-E., Santerne, A., and Estevez-Torres, A.: Traveling for academic research : patterns, determinants and mitigation options, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-11656, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-11656, 2023.

The French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD) is a multidisciplinary academic organisation working in partnership with countries in the Mediterranean and intertropical zone. Through sustainability science, IRD is committed to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Because of its missions, the IRD has a particular footprint linked to the activities of its agents (2100 employees in 2020) and partners, who travel between France and the rest of the world.

The COVID19 health crisis has forced changes in work habits. This study aims to analyze the impact of these changes on carbon emissions. All business trips of IRD employees and partners in the period 2017-2022 were collected in an anonymized database (aboout 67,000 entries), which describes trips, mode of transportation, reasons for travel, and traveler status.

The annual number of trips dropped sharply during the health crisis, from an average of 14,000/year in 2017-2019 to less than 6,000 in 2022 (-60%). Associated carbon emissions dropped by 70%. Starting in 2021, the number of trips increased to about 90% of pre-covid levels in 2022. However, while the share of air travel in total travel has decreased slightly in 2022 compared to 2017-2019, the share of car travel has increased sharply over the past three years, at the expense of train travel, which remains less used than before COVID. On a finer scale, the share of each mode of transport (and therefore the associated footprint) differs markedly according to the regions in which the research teams work, depending on the type of activity and the modes of transport available (e.g. rail travel mainly in Europe, field campaigns mainly by car).

The analysis highlights that the few trips authorized in 2020 and 2021 were primarily for overseas field activities or mobilities, to and from France. These activities, which cannot be replaced by videoconferencing and which constitute the core of IRD's activity, have been prioritized. The widespread use of videoconferencing has reduced the need for travel, especially for meetings and conferences. This is likely accompanied by an increase in virtual meetings, the associated footprint of which is not assessed here.

Traveling less, using videoconferencing when possible, or pooling several objectives for a single trip are trends that seem to emerge from our analysis. It is interesting to note that they are consistent with the actions proposed by research teams engaged in footprint reduction strategies, as highlighted for example by the serious game "Ma Terre en 180'" or the national survey of the Labo1point5 group.

Our analysis, with only one year without travel restrictions (2022), must be consolidated over a longer period (at least 3 years) to assess the sustainability of practice changes and their impact on IRD's carbon footprint. These results will serve as guidelines to define the necessary actions to reduce the environmental footprint of IRD research activities.

How to cite: Peugeot, C., Dany, G., Caroline, P., Benjamin, S., Valeria, H., Serge, J., and Yves, T.: Impact of the COVID19 crisis on changes in business travel and the associated carbon footprint. Case study of a French scientific research institute., EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-16734, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-16734, 2023.

The basis of all serious efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is an inventory of the emissions caused by the various activities of an organisation. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol provides the guideline for establishing such an inventory. The German Research Centre of Geosciences GFZ Potsdam used these guidelines to estimate its greenhouse gas emissions for 2019. Besides the estimation of quantities (e.g. travel distances or hotel nights) which is an administrative challenge, the specific emissions per unit of quantity -- the Global Warming Potential -- play a crucial role. Unequivocal accounting of emissions from construction work is another task of great complexity.  A compilation and standardisation of these values within the research community would greatly simplify the compilation of GHG inventories and help to improve their comparability. Controversy inevitably will arise regarding the design of mitigating measures, like purchase of electricity and heat from renewable sources (which generates extra costs) the compensation of emissions (of which the effectiveness is contested), and even to shifting scientific activities away from those with high greenhouse gas footprints (which may conflict with scientific needs). Building awareness for emissions caused by academic activities and careful communication of mitigation options comprise the first necessary steps en route to low (or net-zero)-emission science.

How to cite: Sens-Schönfelder, C., von Blanckenburg, F., and Kaiser, K.: Taking Stock of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Geosciences: an Example from GFZ Potsdam, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-12106, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-12106, 2023.

To maintain global warming below 1.5°C the last IPCC report indicates global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions should be reduced by 45% and 80% before 2030 and 2050, respectively, reaching an average of 2 tCO2e.pers^-1.yr^-1 on Earth. Although responsibilities vary, substantial reductions must be implemented across all aspects of society including academia. It can even be argued that, given its role in informing and alerting the public about climate and ecological change, the scientific community should have a leading role and demonstrate exemplarity in terms of reducing its environmental impact.

Here, we present a broad-scope GHG budget of five laboratories of the Observatoire Midi-Pyrénées in France, in 2019. The studied laboratories comprise 90 to 260 staff members each, with study fields encompassing the solid Earth and the environment, the superficial biosphere, oceanography and glaciology, atmospheric physics and chemistry, as well as astronomy and astrophysics.

To assess GHG emissions, we follow standard procedure (see Mariette et al., Environ. Res.: Infrastruct. Sustain., 2022) in which any ‘activity data’ quantifying the usage of a given resource (e.g., in kWh of electricity, or km travelled by aircraft) is multiplied with an appropriate ‘emission factor’ quantifying the unitary carbon footprint of the resource (e.g., electricity production or air-travel). The quantified budget thus includes infrastructures usage, professional travel and expenses and an estimation of the GHG footprint of research infrastructures, in particular scientific satellites. For the latter, we adapted the methodology of Knödleser et al. (Nature Astronomy, 2022), in which the GHG footprint is estimated based on the launch mass or cost of the mission and the share attributable to a given lab depends on the fraction of world author affiliated with the lab who have published articles referring to the satellite, as extracted from the Web of Science database.

We find that emissions related to the lab facilities (electricity, heating, air conditioning and waste) and to individual habits (commuting and lunch meals) both reach about 1 tCO2e.pers^-1.yr^-1. Unsurprisingly, professional trips significantly contribute to the overall budget (2-6 tCO2e.pers^-1.yr^-1) and are largely dominated by long-haul air travel. However, services and equipment equally contribute with more than 3-5 tCO2e.pers^-1.yr^-1. These numbers vary between the studied labs but higher (lower) values for services and equipment tends to compensate for lower (higher) values for professional trips. Furthermore, for three out of five laboratories observational data from research infrastructures represents the largest share of the emissions, with about 5-10 tCO2e.pers^-1.yr^-1. Although this last estimate is subject to large uncertainty and shows discrepancies between research fields, it suggests that current GHG budget should include at least a first order estimate of the footprint of research infrastructures and adapt reduction strategies accordingly.

How to cite: Marc, O., Biancamaria, S., Derrien, S., Gheusi, F., Knödleser, J., Kuppel, S., Maisonobe, M., Mialon, A., Martin, P., Pantillon, F., Tibaldo, L., and Toublanc, F.: The share of research infrastructure in comprehensive greenhouse gas budget for five French Earth and Space Science laboratories, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-8402, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-8402, 2023.

The Institute of Environmental Geosciences (IGE) is a public research laboratory in Earth and Environmental Sciences with a staff of about 300 people, which conducts research on climate, the anthropisation of our planet and environmental risks, combining glaciology, hydrology, oceanography, mechanics, atmospheric sciences and human sciences. An important part of its activity consists of field experiments in remote sites (Antarctica, Asia, South America, Africa), numerical simulations using significant computer resources (several million CPU hours/year), using expensive and sometimes energy intensive scientific equipment (e.g. 170 m² of cold rooms).

In 2019, the laboratory collectively decided to adopt a strategy to reduce its Carbon Footprint (CFP) by 7% per year in order to achieve a 50% reduction by 2030 and thus to comply with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. The first CFP budget (2018 and 2019, using the GES1point5 tool) showed a predominance of emissions from professional travels (~640 tCO₂e out of 1850 tCO₂e, i.e. 2.6 tCO₂e/person). In this context, the strategy consisted in defining CO₂ budgets for each of the 8 research teams of the IGE on the basis of the 2018/2019 emissions, imposing a 10% reduction per year from 2020. Given the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, the reduction targets for professional travel were easily achieved (-81% and -64%) and the reduction in 2022 was -39% compared to 2018/2019 instead of the targeted -27%.

For all emission items (commuting, professional travel, heating, electricity, digital computing, purchasing, refrigerants), the reduction was -45% in 2020, -30% in 2021 and -15% in 2022. To consider the evolution of the number of people in the laboratory (and in the teams), the mean individual CFP has been defined as the ratio between the CO₂ emissions and the number of people in the laboratory. The IGE's mean individual CFP was 7.22 tCO₂e/person in 2018/2019 and 5.45 tCO₂e/person in 2022 (for a target of 6.0 tCO2/person). It should be 3.61 tCO₂e/person in 2030.

The strategy (the long-term reduction trajectory and the team-based reduction objectives) is well received by the IGE laboratory staff, even if some staff are still reluctant to any form of reduction. To ease its implementation and check whether it is being kept, a bimonthly monitoring of the teams’ emissions and the mean personal CFP was set up. The IGE also proposes participation in awareness-raising tools (La Fresque du Climat, Ma Terre en 180'). Significant changes in travel habits have followed. For instance, out of the 30 members of the IGE who come to the EGU in Vienna each year, 90% came by plane and 10% by train (a 20-hour long journey) in 2018/2019, and this ratio was 25% by plane and 75% by train in 2022.

To achieve our objective, further actions need to be identified to reduce the "purchase" and "digital computing" emission posts. What will help is that the insulation of the buildings was initiated in 2022, and the cold rooms which emitted a very strong greenhouse gas (refrigerant gas R508b) were changed in 2022 for a model operating with CO₂.

How to cite: Pellarin, T., Champollion, N., Gratiot, N., Teran-Escobar, C., Ruin, I., Panthou, G., Hingray, B., Delaygue, G., Jager, E., Lamothe, A., Piton, G., Evin, G., Blanchet, J., Philippon, N., Philip, A., Martinerie, P., and Picard, G.: Reducing the carbon footprint of a public research laboratory in Geosciences. Assessing a reduction strategy built with laboratory members after a 3-year experimentation, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-13694, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-13694, 2023.

This communication aims at presenting how transitions are being made at different organizational scales at INRAE (French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment): (1) at the scale of a research lab through the perspective of a sustainable development contact person, (2) at the scale of a regional research centre through the perspective of the sustainable development regional manager, and (3) at the national and institutional level with the view of the sustainable development director of INRAE. The overall institutional context is first introduced to further develop viewpoints of the three persons involved on the on-going transitions, the strengths of the implemented approach, but also the points of attention. This communication aims at triggering exchanges on how to make sustainable development reach all organizational levels while ensuring a global coherence, and notably across all professions including administration staff, scientists, engineers, etc.

How to cite: Gauthier, L., Vidal, J.-P., and Carnet, A.: How to make a sustainable development approach successful across all scales of a research institute? Crossed views at INRAE, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-7600, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-7600, 2023.

Some practices embedded in academic culture (international conferences, scientific instruments...) are  important sources of greenhouse gases (e.g., van Ewijk & Hoekman, 2021). Although the scientific community have started to propose ways to reduce the impact of international conferences (e.g., Warner et al., 2022), collective efforts should be pursued to reduce the carbon footprint of the entire academic world. Serious games have been used in the encourage climate change attenuation practices (Fernández Galeote et al., 2021). Nevertheless, to our knowledge, the deployed evaluations have only measured the changes on knowledge and not on actual practices.

My Earth in 180 Minutes (ME180, https://materre.osug.fr/) is a collaborative role-playing game aiming at raising awareness, stimulating interactions in groups and constructing scenarios of professional carbon footprint reductions with multiple stakeholders. The game sessions place staff (researchers, technical and administrative staff, etc.) in a situation of social interaction in which each person plays two characters (inspired from real life observations) of a research team needing to reduce its carbon footprint by 50%. The game allows to build scenarios to reproduce as much as possible the complexity of interactions and the level of inequality existing within academic world. With 85 games played between November 2020 and June 2021, My Earth in 180 Minutes collaborative workshop has shown robust results, in particular Academia’s capacity to reduce its own carbon footprint and propose concrete alternatives: video communication, mutualization and reduction of professional activities (Gratiot et al., 2022).

This communication will describe the methods designed to a) evaluate the effectiveness of the serious game “My Earth in 180 Minutes” in academic practices and b) investigate the factors (e.g., career status, family engagements) that enable or constrain changes in academic practices.

The protocol for a future study is described. Participants working in French research centres (N = 970) will be recruited and randomly split in two groups: a) a group who will participate to the ME180 workshop, or b) control group using another approach for discussing about Academic carbon footprint. Participants will complete online surveys about their professional practices (air travelling, commuting ...) and about the psychological, institutional and, sociodemographic factors related to these practices (intention towards reducing professional air travelling, number of children). The surveys will be repeated six times over the 2 years of the study: before the experiment, one, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after the beginning of the study. Data will be analysed by using mixed linear methods.

We expect that carbon footprint reduction and related practices would be more important in the ME180 group. Mediation and moderation analysis will be used to identify psychological, institutional and, sociodemographic factors (career status, intention to change practices) that may facilitate or block the transition of professional practices.

The previous deployments of “My earth in 180 minutes” help in identifying Academic transition paths (Gratiot et al., in revision). The present study will allow to assess the effects of ME180 in Academic carbon footprint reduction to provide insights about the obstacles and levers of carbon footprint reduction in academia.

How to cite: Teran-Escobar, C., Becu, N., Champollion, N., Gratiot, N., Hingray, B., Panthou, G., and Ruin, I.: My earth in 180 minutes: A transition support system for reducing the carbon footprint in Academia. Experimental design for evaluating its impact on academic practices, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-7612, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-7612, 2023.

As the global research enterprise grapples with the challenge of a low carbon future, a key challenge is the future of international conferences. An emerging initiative which combines elements of the traditional in-person and virtual conference is a multi-hub approach. Here we report on one of the first real-world trials of a multi-hub approach, the World Climate Research Programme/Stratosphere-troposphere Processes And their Role in Climate (WCRP/SPARC) General Assembly held in Qingdao-Reading-Boulder during the last week of October 2022. Based on travel surveys of participants, we estimate that the multi-hub approach reduced the carbon footprint from travel of between a factor of 2.3 and 4.1 times the footprint when hosting the conference in a single location. This resulted in a saving of at least 288 tCO₂eq and perhaps as much as 683 tCO₂eq, compared to having the conference in one location only. Feedback from participants, collected immediately after the conference, showed that the majority (85%) would again attend another conference in a similar format. There are many ways that the format of the SPARC General Assembly could have been improved, but this proof-of-concept provides an inspiration to other groups to give the multi-hub format a try.

How to cite: Zechlau, S., Kremser, S., Charlton-Perez, A., Richter, J., Santos, J., Danzer, J., and Hölbling, S.: Decarbonising conference travel: testing a multi-hub approach, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-5570, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-5570, 2023.