The prairie pothole region of North America has been described as a breadbasket for the world, and a ‘duck factory’ for North America, reflecting the tremendous ecosystem services associated with the vast agricultural lands, and millions of pothole wetlands in the region.  Pressure to increase agricultural outputs and profitability has led to accelerating wetland drainage, leading to a wicked problem worsened by the lack of enforcement of existing policy and vast numbers of unlicensed drainage projects.

Responsive to questions from partners, we embarked on a multi-dimensional research program to understand options for managing the drainage of prairie wetlands.  Novel ecosystem service models, based upon the unique hydrology of the region demonstrate important threats of drainage, including flooding, increased nutrient export, and profound impacts on habitat and biodiversity.  Expert-driven scenario development also shows potential for dire changes in the region associated with climate and land use change.  Importantly, there are fundamental differences among stakeholders in their understanding of how the system works, leading to divergent interpretations of the benefits, and consequences of drainage.  Not surprisingly, wetland drainage has led to conflict, as power dynamics and the effort to coordinate drainage approvals have contributed to winners, losers, and those without voice. However, in some cases drainage conflicts may simply be a resurgence of long-standing disputes over varied issues. 

While interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary work has helped understand the context of wetland drainage in this vast geographic area, problems, and possible ways forward, a weak policy environment is expected to persist because of local ideologies for limited government intervention, a highly politicised environment with strong power imbalances and strong government support of the agriculture sector.  Our work, guided by stakeholders since project inception to inform decision-making, demonstrates significant impacts of drainage with tangible policy implications, yet concerns have emerged about the role of science and representation of science in the policy process. While transdisciplinary research has clear benefits, it is not a panacea in complex, multi-sector, and conflict-prone arenas such as this. 

How to cite: Baulch, H., Loring, P., Spence, C., Miranda, L., Selby, D., and Whitfield, C.: Continuing wetland drainage: drivers, effects, and the role of science-based partnerships and understanding, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-13761, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-13761, 2024.

The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS) of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) was founded in 2009 to investigate the potential of the Anthropocene as a chronostratigraphic unit of the Geological Time Scale. After more than 14 years of work, many key publications and fierce discussions both within and outside the AWG, and several rounds of voting, the AWG concluded by great majority that the Anthropocene concept of Crutzen (2002) has stratigraphic reality and that a formal GSSP definition is pragmatic and suitable at the mid-twentieth century, coincident with the Great Acceleration of Earth System Sciences. The resulting  GSSP proposal  is located in Crawford Lake (Canada) sediment core with the base of the Anthropocene marked by an upturn in plutonium coincident with autumn 1952.  However, during the years of AWG investigations, criticisms from outside and a minority group within the AWG opposed to the majority consensus and published results of the AWG (see Zalasiewicz et al., in press), have undermined the significance, importance and usefulness of the Anthropocene as a (chrono)stratigraphic unit. However, beyond its debated geological implications but in it’s wider interdisciplinary and popular context, the term has evolved into a symbol emblematic of global change, the current climate, and ecological crisis. An argument of prominent geoscientists is that the AWG is politically and not scientifically motivated when dealing with the Anthropocene. Despite the AWG following established ICS protocols and procedures for stratigraphic working groups and founding their conclusions transparently through publications (e.g. Waters et al., 2016, 2023; Zalasiewicz et al., 2017), a political dimension is implicitly imposed on both AWG members, but also at their critics. To what extent would rejection of the Anthropocene proposal be interpreted outside of the sciences as a rejection of the scale of the current global crises? Research into the Anthropocene by the AWG has resulted in awareness and engagement of involved scientists in a crisis for which geology has some liability, but also in a wider interest of the humanities, media and arts on the stratigraphic work of the AWG. Hence, one may interpret geological research in the Anthropocene as a great and timely societal mission for the geosciences, resulting, hopefully, in a sustainable geological discipline emerging out of its historical linkage with the fossil energy sector.

Crutzen, P.J., 2002. Geology of Mankind. Nature 415: 23.

Waters, C.N. et al., 2016. The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science 351(6269): 137.

Waters, C.N. et al., (Eds.), 2023. Candidate sites and other reference sections for the Global boundary Stratotype Section and Point of the Anthropocene series. The Anthropocene Review 10(1): 3–24.

Zalasiewicz, J. et al., 2017. The Working Group on the Anthropocene: Summary of evidence and interim recommendations. Anthropocene 19: 55–60.

Zalasiewicz, J. et al., in press. The Anthropocene within the Geological Time Scale: analysis of fundamental questions. Episodes.

How to cite: Wagreich, M., Waters, C., Hatzenbühler, D., and Horn, E.: Is the definition of the Anthropocene a political question for and within the geosciences?, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-11357, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-11357, 2024.

This communication aims at exposing the steps taken by a research lab – in this case INRAE RiverLy – to reduce its carbon footprint. INRAE RiverLy is an interdisciplinary research unit for the functioning of hydrosystems. The environmental transition process originates in 2020 with the creation of the RiverLy Downstream group launched to address the downstream impacts of research practices (see Vidal et al., 2023).

The first step taken by the RiverLy Downstream group relates to monitoring the laboratory's carbon footprint and identifying the main emission sources. Yearly carbon accountings carried out since 2019 using the GES1.5 tool (https://apps.labos1point5.org/ges-1point5) show that purchases (equipment, consumables, etc.) account for the majority (>50%) of the lab footprint. They also highlight the impact of changes in individual practices related to business travel, with -63% of travel-related emissions in 2022 compared to 2019.

A second step focused on raising awareness through a Climate Day and testing the willingness to change within our research unit through an opinion poll. Results led to writing down a lab charter which was unanimously adopted by the lab council in October 2023. This charter sets a collective 10%/year cut-down trajectory with respect to the 2022 carbon accounting, while affirming the determination to preserve the positive impact of our research on society.

A third step now being undertaken by the RiverLy Downstream team is to come up with concrete collective actions to effectively reduce the lab footprint. Participatory workshops are being organised in January and February 2024 to specify agreed actions for the various research activities: long-distance travelling, purchasing scientific and IT equipment, setting up a research project, doing lab and field experiments, performing biological and chemical analyses, performing scientific computations, and organising seminars and conferences. Consolidated and agreed propositions will then be submitted to the lab council for formal acceptation and implementation.

The whole process benefits from rich interactions with the INRAE national to regional strategy for reducing its environmental footprint (https://www.inrae.fr/en/corporate-social-responsibility-inrae), and with the French national initiative Labos1point5 which set up a national network of labs in transition (https://apps.labos1point5.org/transition-1point5).

Vidal, J.-P., Berni, C., Coquery, M., Devers, A., Gauthier, L., Lauvernet, C., Masson, M., Mimeau, L., and Turlan, M. and the RiverLy Downstream team: How to collectively engage in reducing the carbon footprint of a research lab?, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 24–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-3462, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-3462, 2023.

How to cite: Lauvernet, C., Berni, C., Coquery, M., Gauthier, L., Héraut, L., Masson, M., Mimeau, L., and Vidal, J.-P. and the Riverly Downstream team: Reducing the carbon footprint of a research lab: how to move from individual initiatives to collective actions?, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-18413, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-18413, 2024.

Conference attendance forms a key part of academic life (Arsenault et al. 2019; Lassen 2022) and scholars of science have pointed to its functions for individual careers as well as for advancing knowledge production and integration Yet mega-conferences, such as EGU, constitute a significantly carbon-intensive aspect of scientific work, with estimates that the American counterpart, AGU, has a carbon footprint similar to that of the city of Edinburgh in one week (Klöwer et al. 2020). Advocating for sustainable transformations while simultaneously relying on air travel for mobility thus exposes academia, and especially climate scientists, to accusations of hypocrisy (Dey and Russell 2022, Nordhagen et al. 2014). How do geoscientists navigate the dilemma created by the competing demands of attending conferences for their scholarly, social, and professional development and their desire to lead an exemplary pathway?

By using the space of this session at EGU as a ‘living lab’, we as social scientists want to engage with geoscientists, gather their perceptions of academic travel and reflect on their own position in this incongruous mode of knowledge exchange. We will employ interactive methodologies such as Mentimeter mini-surveys and focused discussions to introduce reflective questions that geoscientists can ask themselves regarding the sociocultural aspects of conference attendance, the perceived impact on academic reputation, the challenges faced by early career scientists, and the complex navigation of the environmental tensions associated with high carbon footprint meetings. This contribution is informed by a research project that studies and compares academic conference and travel cultures across disciplines.  

References

Arsenault, Julien; Talbot, Julie; Boustani, Lama; Gonzalès, Rodolphe; Manaugh, Kevin (2019): The environmental footprint of academic and student mobility in a large research-oriented university. In Environ. Res. Lett. 14 (9), p. 95001. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab33e6.

Colin Dey; Shona Russell (2022): Still Flying in the Face of Low-carbon Scholarship? A Final Call for the CSEAR Community to Get on Board. In Social and Environmental Accountability Journal 42 (3), pp. 208–222. DOI: 10.1080/0969160X.2022.2094983.

Klöwer, Milan; Hopkins, Debbie; Allen, Myles; and Higham, James (2020): An analysis of ways to decarbonize conference travel after COVID-19. In Nature 583, pp. 356–359. DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.3553784.

Lassen, Claus (2022): Aeromobilities and Academic Work. In Kristian Bjørkdahl (Ed.): Academic Flying and the Means of Communication. With assistance of Adrian Santiago Franco Duharte. Singapore: Springer Singapore Pte. Limited, pp. 269–296.

Nordhagen, Stella; Calverley, Dan; Foulds, Chris; O’Keefe, Laura; Wang, Xinfang (2014): Climate change research and credibility: balancing tensions across professional, personal, and public domains. In Climatic Change 125 (2), pp. 149–162. DOI: 10.1007/s10584-014-1167-3.

How to cite: Rödder, S., Karnik Hinks, E., Braun, M., and Ibrahim, Y.: Engaging with geoscientists’ conference mobility: a living lab approach, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-1795, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-1795, 2024.

The current ecological crisis requires changes in our way to make science in order to reduce the ecological footprint of scientific research activities. This is particularly crucial for setting a good example for the rest of society. Here we present the process engaged by an oceanography laboratory to reduce its environmental footprint. Using a tool developed by the French collective Labos 1point5, we calculated the carbon footprint of our laboratory separated by activities (missions, consumables, buildings, campaigns at sea, etc.). This exercise allows us first of all to quantify the contribution of the various components of our scientific activity. It also shows that the environmental footprint of our scientific activities is significant, and that it needs to be taken seriously by the community studying the Earth system. Reducing this footprint highlights different possible scales of action. Some actions involve internal laboratory processes, while others require broader societal changes. The measures implemented by our laboratory members to minimize our activities' impact will be presented, representing a part of a broader initiative under Labos 1point5.

How to cite: Pauthenet, E., Barbot, S., Auger, P. A., and Machu, E.: An oceanography lab in its journey toward temperance, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-17314, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-17314, 2024.

Universities are under increasing scrutiny from students, staff and society about their ties with the fossil fuel industry. Such ties include research cooperations and commissions, influence and participation in study programmes, sponsoring of students and student societies, sponsored professorships and staff ancilliary activities, presence at careers fairs and alumni networks. For fair and open discussion on what relationships between universities and the fossil fuel industry are appropriate, such relationships must be transparent - currently this is not the case. 

In the Netherlands, the Mapping Fossil Ties coalition - a research coalition of student and staff activists, NGOs and independent investigators - map these "fossil ties" and track the influence of fossil fuel companies in universities. We use a variety of methods: freedom of information (FOI) requests to universities and funding bodies, web scraping, and decentralised, crowdsourced information gathering on campus. From this, we could build a fuller picture of how Dutch academia interacts with and is influenced by the fossil industry, and can identify hidden, yet problematic ties. 

The collaborations, news coverage, and state of the debate are continually updated on a web portal (mappingfossilties.org) for the use of investigative journalists, (activist) student and university staff, NGOs, policymakers, and the public. In this talk we present our methodology, the impact that this research has had on the Dutch public debate, how this research underpins student and staff activism, and points for improvement and learning. Finally we discuss how we are replicating such research in other countries, and how others can do so too.

How to cite: Sachisthal, M., Pereira, A., and Knoester, L.: Mapping Fossil Ties: Decentralised research into ties between universities and the fossil fuel industry, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-20180, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-20180, 2024.

As anticipated by scientists for decades, impacts of climate change, biodiversity losses and natural resources scarcity, are increasingly challenging human societies in these early 2020s. To respond to this challenge, a large number of countries are undertaking profound societal shifts towards low-carbon and biodiversity-friendly lifestyles. So far, these efforts have been clearly insufficient to achieve sustainable development goals and more ambitious action will be needed at all decision levels.

In France, the government has taken the decisive step to train all civil servants on the three above-cited environmental issues. The aim of this unique and ambitious initiative is to engage as many state stakeholders and practioners as possible, by raising their awareness and knowledge about both environmental risks and challenges to be faced, in order to initiate an effective, societal-scale transition that has to be collective, collaborative and systemic by essence. This initiative is partly related to a "foot in the door" media operation carried out in June 2022, just after the presidential and legislative elections, and initiated by the scientific community to offer free training courses on climate and biodiversity issues to newly-elected members of parliament.

The ongoing inter-ministerial initiative is steered at national level by an interdisciplinary group of scientists who are responsible for framing training content and methods. Its operational implementation is ensured by regional committees of scientists to address local issues grounded in actionable reality, and to facilitate effective scaling-up. The ambition is to train 25,000 top managers civil servants by the end of 2024, and 5,7 million civil servants by 2027. Scientific knowledge is at the heart of the training program and the entire cursus runs over 28 hours in face-to-face to ensure cooperative dynamics during workshops, masterclasses, debates and field trips. More than 1,200 academics have volunteered to disseminate scientific facts as aid to decision-making, and to present the scientific methods that supports them. Training courses in scientific mediation will be offered to scientists engaged in the project, especially to early career researchers. The evaluation of the full initiative will be independently carried out through 3 PhD theses.

The ultimate aim of this initiative is to create shared and long-lasting spaces for dialogue and trust between public decision-makers and the scientific community. In this talk, we will describe and discuss the pivotal role played by the scientific community in this initiative. We will report the lessons learnt from the first training courses, as well as the successes and various obstacles that have been encountered.

How to cite: Cassou, C., Abbadie, L., Tubiana, L., Dorioz, U., Lecomte, J., and Gouny, C. and the GAES (Groupe d'Appui et d'Expertise Scientifique): The pivotal roles of the scientists in the initiative lead by the French government to train all civil servants on climate, biodiversity and natural resources issues, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-17840, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-17840, 2024.

The role of geoscientists is evolving in response to the changing world and the crises we are facing. Geoscientists, whom some of us authors identify as, possess crucial insight into phenomena of existential relevance. However, we seem to lack agency to contribute to the urgently needed transformation. Inspired by the question of what society demands, especially regarding climate change expertise, we approached individuals who play important roles in mitigation and adaptation in their organisations across different sectors of Finnish society. Using qualitative methodology, including a questionnaire to fifty-eight and in-depth expert interviews with twenty-four professionals—we developed a competency framework. This framework aims to support the development of higher education and continuous learning that is based on research and scientific knowledge on climate change and addresses the needs of society.

Our study revealed six categories of competencies: systemic climate change insight; visions and strategies in changing climate; compassionate climate leadership; active engagement in networks; courage and determination in climate action; and climate values and justice. These categories represent a combination of skills, knowledge, and attitudes useful for individuals aiming to drive climate change action, but also as basis for developing collective competence. For instance, a geoscientist might have strong systemic insight based on their training, but may lack compassionate leadership skills, meaning either that further education is needed or a group of differently skilled experts could fill the gaps to form a climate-competent team.

Competent experts and professionals must be educated hand in hand with societal transformation. Therefore education must be transdisciplinary, involving a multitude of actors and stakeholders. To respond to the societal needs, University of Helsinki is developing new continuous education to professionals in the field and a two-year 60-credits Specialisation programme in climate expertise is planned to start in spring 2024. 

How to cite: Siponen, J., Santala, M., Salovaara, J., Tolppanen, S., Vesterinen, V.-M., Lavonen, J., Lauri, K. A., and Riuttanen, L.: Climate Change Competence Needs in the Society, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-8836, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-8836, 2024.

ClimarisQ is a smartphone/web game from a scientific mediation project that highlights the complexity of the climate system and the urgency of collective action to limit climate change. It is available in four languages: English, French, Spanish and Italian. It is an app-game where players must make decisions to limit the frequency and impacts of extreme climate events and their impacts on human societies using real climate models. ClimarisQ is a game conceived by the CNRS researcher Davide Faranda through the CNRS – AMCSTI – ISC-PIF scientific mediation incubator on complex systems. The development of ClimarisQ, powered by the videogame company Opal Games, has been financially supported by the University of Paris-Saclay : La Diagonale Paris-Saclay.

The goal of the game is to explore the effects of mitigation and adaptation choices to extreme climate events at the local, regional and global levels. Can you achieve a greener trajectory than the IPCC RCP 4.5 emission scenario by playing ClimarisQ? Explore the feedback mechanisms (notably physical, but also economic and social) that produce extreme effects on the climate system.

In the game, you make decisions on a continental scale and see the impact of these decisions on the economy, politics and the environment. You will have to deal with extreme events (heat waves, cold waves, heavy rainfall and drought) generated by a real climate model. Then, you will have to try to balance the “popularity”, “ecology” and “finance” gauges as long as possible. Fulfill all the missions to explore different climates. The game-over displays both the PPM (parts per million) of CO2 deviation from the intermediate scenario of greenhouse gas emissions established by the IPCC (RCP4.5), as well as the number of survival game turns. These elements stimulate thinking about climate change and motivate the player to do better next time. Thanks to the hazards introduced by the extreme events and cards, every game is different!

How to cite: Faranda, D. and the ClimarisQ team: ClimarisQ: A game on the complexity of the climate systems and the extreme events, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-11035, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-11035, 2024.

Climate change is one of the greatest threats facing humanity. Scientists are well-positioned to help address it beyond conducting academic research, yet little is known about their engagement with the issue. We investigate scientists’ engagement with climate change using quantitative and qualitative analyses of a large-scale survey (N = 9,220) across 115 countries, all disciplines, and all career stages. We explore their beliefs about the role of scientists and scientific institutions in the context of climate change as well as their engagement in climate actions. These actions include forms of advocacy and activism ranging from signing petitions to engaging in civil disobedience and high-impact lifestyle changes such as reducing flying or adopting a plant-rich diet.

We find, for example, that 91% of surveyed scientists believe that fundamental changes to social, political, and economic systems are needed to address climate change; that a large majority of scientists feel a responsibility as scientists to address climate change; that more scientists agree than disagree that scientists should become more involved in advocacy and protest; and that the proportion of scientists who say they are willing to engage in these actions is substantial, suggesting that there is great potential for increased engagement by scientists on climate change beyond research. We also find that climate researchers engage in considerably more climate advocacy and activism than their peers in other research fields, but that this difference is significantly smaller for high-impact lifestyle changes.

Based on the qualitative and quantitative responses to our survey, we propose a two-stage model of engagement in advocacy and protest: Scientists must first overcome intellectual barriers (e.g., low levels of worry, lack of efficacy beliefs, lack of identification with activists) and practical barriers (e.g., lack of skills, fear of losing credibility, fear of repercussions) to be willing to engage, and then additional barriers (e.g., lack of time, lack of opportunity, not knowing any groups) to actually engage. Based on this model, we provide concrete recommendations for increasing scientists’ engagement with climate change.

Paper I: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/73w4s
Paper II: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/5fqtr

How to cite: Dablander, F., Sachisthal, M., Cologna, V., Strahm, N., Bosshard, A., Grüning, N.-M., Green, A., Brick, C., Aron, A., and Haslbeck, J.: Going Beyond Research: A Large-scale Investigation of Climate Change Engagement by Scientists, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-9536, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-9536, 2024.

With detailed understanding of planetary boundaries like the connection of continuously increasing global greenhouse gas emissions and the frequency and severity of climate change impacts (geo)scientists recognize the critical need for ambitious political action perhaps more urgently than non-experts. Yet, global policies have consistently failed to deliver on their ambitions, goals, and implementation, making necessary transformations elusive. We argue that (geo)scientists can have a considerable impact beyond the traditional avenues of publishing papers and reports or advising policy makers. Drawing inspiration from historical successes, particularly in non-violent civil disobedience, we explore the considerations of engaging in climate activism from the dual perspectives of scientists and civil servants. Using the example of scientists at public scientific institutions in the Netherlands, we delve into questions surrounding one’s rights, duties, and responsibilities. We aim to stimulate reflection on effective strategies for scientists to advocate for change in the critical arena of climate action and climate justice.

How to cite: Jüling, A. and Keizer, I.: Navigating the Intersection of Science, Activism, and Civil Service: Reflections on the role of scientists in civil service, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-18782, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-18782, 2024.

The current state and future projections of the climate and environmental crises call for science to be able to have a deep impact on society, and to have it quickly. Here we discuss how scientists engaging in climate activism can contribute to educating the general public and press for urgent action, as well as under which conditions such scientific activism can be most effective.

Traditionally, science has mostly interacted with society by making scientific results public, without interfering in how politicians, business and the general public would make use of them. Similarly, the role of science educators has been often confined to spreading knowledge to students and broader audiences, independently of how this knowledge affects society. However, such communication and education efforts appear insufficient considering unambitious policies with regards to the current climate and ecological crises. As a result, many scientists, both within and outside academia, have been looking for other ways to communicate the urgency of the climate crisis. Notably, communication efforts have increasingly extended to public support of environmental action movements and participation in protests and civil disobedience actions.

In this work, we discuss how activism can be complementary to classical approaches of science communication and public education on the urgency of the climate and environmental crises. We will highlight recent examples of civil disobedience by scientists with a focus on the Netherlands. We also present the reaction from stakeholders such as politicians and representatives of companies, as well as the reception of such actions by the scientific community. We discuss the place of activism in the broader scientific community, where our viewpoint is that scientific activism can only become an efficient way of science communication and public engagement if (i) it is accepted and respected within the scientific community, and (ii) it adheres to rules allowing such communication to maintain or increase scientific reputation in society. We also stress the supportive role of universities and research institutes in enabling the engagement with activism, especially for early career scientists. Scientific institutions should emphasize that climate activism and advocacy is welcome among both researchers and educators, that their freedom of speech is protected, and that such activities are recognized as valuable.

How to cite: Oldeman, A., Keizer, I., and Jüling, A.: Climate activism as a form of science communication and public engagement, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-19960, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-19960, 2024.

The Conferences of the Parties (COP) annually assess progress in dealing with climate change and towards legally-binding obligations to reduce or limit greenhouse gas emissions. Despite almost three decades of COPs and landmark treaties such as the Kyoto protocol (1997) and the Paris agreement (2015), global greenhouse gas emissions are a far cry from the emission pathways limiting global warming below 1.5-2°C as defined by the scientific consensus synthesized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The failure at igniting state-level actions for climate mitigation stems from many factors, including a politico-economic hegemony, vested interests and techno-economic mindsets (Stoddard et al., 2021), well-embodied in the meager, voluntarism-based outcomes of increasingly questioned COPs. It may make sense that leading scientists still go to COPs to carry the voice of scientific consensus and convey the need for rapid action. However, scientists may also consider taking part in transformative changes through bottom-up initiatives where the conversation between scientists, collectives, citizens and media is more easily insulated from intense lobbying and greenwashing, allowing to focus on fact-based and ethics-driven endeavors, while showcasing unbridled perspectives for policymakers. Here we report the example of alternative COPs that took place in France in parallel to the COP28 in Dubai, organized by the Scientifiques en rebellion collective during the international Scientist Rebellion campaign “How much more climate failure can we take?”. Articulating a series of short events across French cities culminating with a 4-day alterCOP in Bordeaux, this grassroots initiative by scientists and activists was an invitation to take time to germinate new imaginations and popular initiatives, in a certain way “slowing down” to catalyze action considering the broader picture. Topics covered by this alterCOP took a systemic approach, beyond the climate breakdown, to include the other intertwined planetary boundaries (ecosystem health, water cycle, land use, etc.), discussing other economic systems (e.g. degrowth), international solidarity, and stimulating various world representations (present or desirable) and communication media, from artistic performances to a mock trial of a fossil fuel company.

References
Stoddard, I, et al. (2021). Three decades of climate mitigation: why haven't we bent the global emissions curve?. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 46, 653-689.

How to cite: Kuppel, S. and the Scientifiques en rebellion collective: Conference of the Parties or Conference of the People? Introducing a series of alternative grassroots COPs, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-15634, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-15634, 2024.