Space exploration has enabled humanity to unlock and discover amazing things about the Earth we inhabit. It has pushed our scientific boundaries and transformed the way in which we communicate, navigate, predict the weather, monitor climate, and investigate the rest of the Solar System and the Universe. With humanity’s ever growing greenhouse gas emissions and resource exploitation driving us closer to tipping points that threaten our existence, could it also be a solution to our planetary boundaries? Could we reduce our impact on Earth by exploiting the resources and energy sources of other planets? Or is extending humanity’s exploitation to nearby planets an unethical option that will cause more problems than it solves?

This Great Debate will outline the benefits and opportunities that we may be able to achieve through space exploration while debating the ethical dilemmas and potential risks that it comes with. It will discuss the impacts of private investment into space exploration and the potential for its regulation. Not only is this an ethical issue, but unregulated access to space exploration and a surge in activity has the potential to result in collisions and space debris that, could in an extreme circumstance, limit our access to space in the future. The panelists will also debate if humanity can ethically exploit the resources on other planets and objects in space and how we can limit our impact beyond our planetary boundaries.

The sheer number and ferocity of extreme weather events causing major impacts in recent years have shocked and surprised many, including those working in the earth science community. We are seeing temperature records smashed by large margins, unprecedented wildfires, and floods with huge destructive power and massive impacts.

Despite widespread media coverage of these devastating events, policy and public opinion still lag a long way behind what is required to address the climate crisis effectively and rapidly.

This Great Debate asks why this might be the case, and critically examines the role of the earth science community in driving public opinion and policy making. It will examine the messaging, the tone and the science that shapes how climate change is presented to the public and policymakers, and look at how our community can help to drive climate action before it is too late.

The session will ask:
• Climate change impacts appear to be worse than we thought, and have come sooner than we thought. Is this the case?
• Are the traditional methods of describing climate change, in terms of 1.5 oC of warming, 7% more precipitation etc. hindering more than helping, since it is the terrifying extreme events way outside of these narrow margins that have such catastrophic impacts?
• Is the term ‘warming’ in itself problematic? Warmth is generally perceived as a good thing, a nice thing. 50 oC heat and raging wildfires however are anything but good or nice.
• How can we effectively forecast and express the extremes, and communicate the potential impact of major tipping points?
• Has the policy of putting an optimistic spin on the climate crisis failed? Does the conversation now need to pivot toward the terrifying consequences of inaction?
• How do we ensure messaging from the earth science community is impactful and effective…?

Proponents of collaboration between scientific experts with advocacy and activist groups point towards the inextricable bonds between science and politics, where neither exist in a vacuum and silence only perpetuates the problems research seeks to resolve. Opponents cite the threat to integrity: scientists associated with or engaging in activism risk producing an image of science as a political group rather than a dispassionate process of knowledge generation. Such an image may erode public trust and risk political retaliation through funding cuts. Identifying the threshold between maintaining scientific integrity and motivating change is therefore critical, as it strikes the balance between preserving the academy and positioning science to have real impact. As many researchers are driven to science by their own passions, a considerable intersect exists between the desire to do science and to see beneficial, just change in real terms. This makes for a suitable debate where the lines scientists walk can be discussed, such as the balance between scientists actively engaging advocates and activists, and the scientist’s positions as a neutral broker of information. This debate will be driven questions seeking to demarcate this boundary, asking: Is there an ethical imperative for geoscientists to engage with climate-advocacy groups? How can scientists best support advocates for evidence-based societal and environmental change? How political should science be, and is there a line which, when crossed, may threaten scientific integrity? Is there space for both knowledge brokers and science advocates when pursuing change? Should scientist look towards grass-root movements or engage with governmental institutions? What does scientific activism look like, and can it be implemented across a range of actions?

Following on from the success of the 2022 EGU EDI Union Symposium 'Scientific Neocolonialism: What is it and why should you care?', the EGU would like to expand the conversation surrounding this important topic. In particular, the aim of this Great Debate is to hear from people that have experienced neocolonialism in science, acknowledge the issues, explore solutions that our scientific community and the EGU can implement to raise awareness, and discuss examples to eliminate neocolonialism from our geoscience ecosystem. In particular, we will continue conversations on the following questions:
- Why is it vital that local communities participate in geoscientific research?
- Which barriers are preventing inclusion of local communities within the geoscience research ecosystem (this will include personal testimonials from geoscientists from under-represented countries)?
- What are the tools and mechanisms to advocate and amplify the voices and recognition of local knowledge in geoscience research?
- How can research funding help geoscientists construct meaningful and fair scientific exchange with local communities where international science is conducted?
- How can institutions help geoscientists to conduct science including local communities?

Is social media a worthwhile vector for communicating science and reaching non-expert audiences? Proponents of social media highlight its ability for bringing otherwise inaccessible research to a global network, spreading research to new audiences whilst cultivating a following. The public can be updated with discoveries in real-time, without the potentially modifying lens of traditional media. And with content under the control of individuals or small groups communicators can flex and nurture their creativity. But communicating through social media often requires sacrificing nuance and accuracy for the extremely short time-frames of attention and engagement. Critics also state that it requires a considerable time-investment and money, which may otherwise distract from core research activities. Amongst this is also the fear that social media exposes communicators to the possibility of derision and hateful conduct. In this Great Debate, our panellists will be asking if effective communication on social media is possible or whether scientists are better investing their efforts elsewhere.

The global scientific community agrees that science, knowledge and publications should be open and accessible to everyone. Within the international science landscape, however, different strategies are applied to reach this goal within the near future. Various global or national initiatives are pursued to introduce transformative agreements between publishers and research institutions or libraries to accelerate the transformation from subscription-based to open access publishing. An increasing number of funders/research institutions set up institutional agreement with publishers to cover publication costs for their researchers. The pace and nature of establishing such agreements greatly varies between research institutions in various countries which leads to disadvantages for researchers across the world.

More than 20 years ago, EGU pioneered its publication model of open access publishing with open peer review for transparency and high quality in publishing. In this tradition of these values, this plenary discussion is aimed at bringing together representatives of European research institutions and funding agencies. The discussion will be focused on how and why different approaches towards fully open access publishing are pursued and on possible steps to achieve jointly and efficiently the common goal of open access publishing and open science on European and wider levels.