EOS4.5 | Moving beyond research-as-usual: Exploring and assessing the role of geoscientists in the face of the climate and ecological emergencies
EDI
Moving beyond research-as-usual: Exploring and assessing the role of geoscientists in the face of the climate and ecological emergencies
Co-organized by BG8/GM12/NH9
Convener: Odin Marc | Co-conveners: Elodie Duyck, Rosa Rantanen, Louise Mimeau, Pauline Bonnet
Orals
| Mon, 15 Apr, 08:30–12:30 (CEST)
 
Room 0.15
Posters on site
| Attendance Tue, 16 Apr, 10:45–12:30 (CEST) | Display Tue, 16 Apr, 08:30–12:30
 
Hall X1
Orals |
Mon, 08:30
Tue, 10:45
Geoscientists are actively engaged in advancing knowledge pertaining to current climate change and environmental crisis, and disseminating it to a broad audience, from the general public to policymakers and stakeholders.

To date, efforts to trigger radical transformations, whether by political, economic, or civil society actors, have overwhelmingly fallen short of the urgent actions recommended by scientific institutions such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Some scholars argue that the underlying issue lies not primarily in the absence of information (Oreskes, The trouble with the supply-side model of science, 2022), but rather in the power dynamics among various stakeholders and that recognizing this is fundamental (Stoddard et al., Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven’t We Bent the Global Emissions Curve?, 2013).
This session targets the diverse roles that geoscientists can play in accelerating the radical transformation of our society to address the current ecological crisis.

Key questions include: How to engage with civil society, stakeholders and policymakers to ensure the implementation of research findings into appropriate policies? How to assess and reduce the ecological footprint of scientific institution, as to show exemplary pathways to the rest of society? How to expand outreach and training efforts, and towards who, the general public or specific stakeholders such as elected representatives, civil servants, economic actors, or even fellow academics? How to contribute and assist legal actions against private or public entities? Should scientists engage in disruptive actions and civil disobedience to transform their own institutions and press on problematic actors, such as the fossil fuel industry?
 
We invite contributions that address these questions, whether from a theoretical perspective or through firsthand experiences. We are particularly interested in examples of research projects or collaborations that have attempted to assess their impact on any of the strategies given above (e.g., ecological footprints, policies, litigation, communication, or pressing on relevant stakeholders). Interdisciplinary work, spanning fields like philosophy, history, sociology, and their application to science or broader societal aspects, is highly encouraged.

Orals: Mon, 15 Apr | Room 0.15

Chairpersons: Louise Mimeau, Rosa Rantanen, Odin Marc
08:30–08:35
Transdiciplinary science in the Anthropocene
08:35–08:45
|
EGU24-13761
|
On-site presentation
Helen Baulch, Phil Loring, Christopher Spence, Lauren Miranda, Don Selby, and Colin Whitfield

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.

08:45–08:55
|
EGU24-11357
|
On-site presentation
Michael Wagreich, Colin Waters, Diana Hatzenbühler, and Eva Horn

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.

08:55–09:05
|
EGU24-4006
|
ECS
|
On-site presentation
|
Gabriel Hes, Jean-Michel Hupé, Sylvain Kuppel, Iris-Amata Dion, Laure Laffont, and Marieke Van Lichtervelde

Given the ever-widening gap between current policies and the socio-economic transformations required to mitigate and adapt to the ongoing environmental and related social upheaval, a growing number of academics question their role within and beyond academia. Geoscientists are holding important responsibilities, some of them they could be regarded as accountable for: if, on the one hand, they bring strong disciplinary knowledge on climate change, and they contribute to modeling scenarios of socio-economic trajectories (and, therefore, sociological imagination); on the other hand, as geological survey is key to fossil fuel exploration and minerals extraction, they have close relationships with companies and institutions that are threatening the habitability of the planet. Accepting those responsibilities means a significant departure from the research-as-usual stance, which defines a barrier between knowledge and how society uses that knowledge. Geoscientists who do not consider such a barrier as relevant may act in many different ways, such as taking moral positions in the professional arena, learning from humanities within interdisciplinary studies, or adopting a situated knowledge standpoint in place of the illusory principle of scientific neutrality. We should emphasize that these behaviors do not necessarily undermine scientific integrity. But they do reflect an epistemic view different from research-as-usual, and which requires learning and careful practices. Under the Atécopol acronym (“Atelier d’écologie politique”), the Toulouse Studies in Political Ecology is a network of academics created 5 years ago to experiment those practices. The Atécopol collectives (now about 7 in France) take a political ecology perspective, in which environmental issues necessarily imply socio-economical choices. These choices convey representations and value systems that require scientists to take a reflexive and situated stand. The collectives bring together a diversity of disciplines and professional status, with the aim to create bridges between scientific knowledge and social and political debates at a regional scale and beyond. As such, they constitute an alternative way to conduct scientific research leveraging conscious, transformative actions: an ethical posture, transdisciplinarity, horizontality and reflexivity. The Atécopol collectives therefore intend to transform local organizations and institutions within the research community, and more broadly within society as a whole. The actions undertaken so far by the Atécopol collectives include (i) knowledge circulation, such as, training, communication and scientific events, (ii) appeals to the general public in the form of opinion columns and petitions, (iii) initiating local interdisciplinary research projects and (iv) challenging research policies. Here, we intend to share the outcomes of these experiences in order to pause, reflect upon and radically question research-as-usual in the field of geoscience.

How to cite: Hes, G., Hupé, J.-M., Kuppel, S., Dion, I.-A., Laffont, L., and Van Lichtervelde, M.: What responsibilities of geosciences in the turmoil of the Anthropocene? Example of a political ecology perspective., EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-4006, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-4006, 2024.

09:05–09:10
Reducing the environmental footprint of science
09:10–09:20
|
EGU24-18413
|
On-site presentation
|
Claire Lauvernet, Céline Berni, Marina Coquery, Leslie Gauthier, Louis Héraut, Matthieu Masson, Louise Mimeau, and Jean-Philippe Vidal and the Riverly Downstream team

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.

09:20–09:30
|
EGU24-1795
|
On-site presentation
Simone Rödder, Ella Karnik Hinks, Max Braun, and Youssef Ibrahim

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.

09:30–09:40
|
EGU24-17314
|
ECS
|
On-site presentation
Etienne Pauthenet, Simon Barbot, Pierre Amael Auger, and Eric Machu

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.

09:40–09:50
|
EGU24-20180
|
ECS
|
Highlight
|
On-site presentation
Maien Sachisthal, Aaron Pereira, and Linda Knoester

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.

09:50–09:55
Training other actors
09:55–10:15
|
EGU24-17840
|
solicited
|
Highlight
|
On-site presentation
Christophe Cassou, Luc Abbadie, Laurence Tubiana, Ulysse Dorioz, Jane Lecomte, and Claire Gouny and the GAES (Groupe d'Appui et d'Expertise Scientifique)

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.

Coffee break
Chairpersons: Elodie Duyck, Odin Marc, Rosa Rantanen
10:45–10:55
|
EGU24-8836
|
ECS
|
On-site presentation
Joula Siponen, Marianne Santala, Janne Salovaara, Sakari Tolppanen, Veli-Matti Vesterinen, Jari Lavonen, Katja Anniina Lauri, and Laura Riuttanen

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.

Outreach for climate litteracy
10:55–11:05
|
EGU24-11035
|
On-site presentation
Davide Faranda and the ClimarisQ team

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.

11:05–11:15
|
EGU24-12554
|
On-site presentation
Les Sacoches du Climat, Juliette Bernard, Antoine Bierjon, Julie Carles, Antoine Ehret, Rémi Gaillard, Alexandre Legay, Alban Planchat, and Christophe Cassou

Rural and medium-sized town populations already regularly face the tangible impacts of climate change, particularly in relation to their professional activities. However, they are often overlooked by the scientific community when it comes to knowledge sharing, even though they equally deserve attentive listening and consideration. 'Les Sacoches du Climat' (i.e. 'The Climate Panniers') is a French scientific outreach initiative led by a collective of young climate researchers specializing in various fields. The initiative was designed to raise awareness of climate issues in such regions, taking on the challenge of reaching the last mile in the large-scale French awareness campaign 'La Tournée du Climat et de la Biodiversité' (i.e. 'The Climate and Biodiversity Tour') — a traveling exhibition in major cities addressing climate and biodiversity issues led by a multidisciplinary team of scientists. 

Our journey unfolded over a week, navigating the landscapes of rural France on bicycles. During the day, we engaged with secondary school audiences, delivering an introduction to climate challenges followed by interactive discussions and workshops, with a particular emphasis on a sensitive approach. This educational endeavor was seamlessly intertwined with collaborative projects involving teaching staff. In the evening, we engaged adult audiences through conferences and debates, fostering collaboration with local communities and associations. Accompanied by esteemed French climatologists riding tandem with us, our collective presents here a brief retrospective of this journey and the messages derived from it. This initiative serves as an earnest call for climatologists to step beyond the traditional confines of research, immerse themselves in the field, and consider the impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability of territories in all their diversity and specificity in the face of climate change, fostering a responsible societal paradigm shift.

How to cite: du Climat, L. S., Bernard, J., Bierjon, A., Carles, J., Ehret, A., Gaillard, R., Legay, A., Planchat, A., and Cassou, C.: 'Les Sacoches du Climat': An outreach cycling initiative for covering the last mile of climate communication in rural France, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-12554, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-12554, 2024.

11:15–11:20
From engagement to activism
11:20–11:40
|
EGU24-16862
|
solicited
|
Highlight
|
Virtual presentation
|
Augustin Fragnière

The growing involvement of researchers in the public debate is triggering reflections in various scientific institutions. Here we report on the reflections of a working group of the University of Lausanne (UNIL) gathering researchers from all faculties, coordinated by the Competence Centre in Sustainability (CCD) and the Interdisciplinary Centre for Ethics Research (CIRE). Commissioned by UNIL’s Rectorate, the working group met thirteen times between April 2020 and May 2022 and independently defined the themes, approaches and methods that it deemed relevant to mobilize in this perspective. In particular, it conducted a literature review, a survey and focus groups with the UNIL community in the spring of 2021.

The working group's reflections were primarily aimed at clarifying the issues related to the engagement of scientists in the public debate and at better understanding the practices and perceptions of the UNIL community in this respect. They also aimed to propose answers to questions such as: should researchers be free to engage in public advocacy and activism? Is this compatible with the swiss legal framework and with notions such as science neutrality and academic freedom? What good practices should be followed when engaging in advocacy and/or activism? How should UNIL, as an institution, support its engaged researchers?

The main conclusion of the working group, published in a report in May 2022, is that participation in the public debate, advocacy and activism is compatible with research activities and as such should be supported by the academic institutions. However, it recommends a few good practices such as being as transparent as possible about the role that is endorsed (expert, researcher, activist, etc.) and about the nature of the statements that are made in public (scientific findings, personal opinion, political recommendation, etc.). In this brief oral, I will delve into the main conclusions of the working group’s report and address the questions mentioned above.

How to cite: Fragnière, A.: Exploring key issues in public engagement and activism. Findings of a working group at the University of Lausanne., EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-16862, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-16862, 2024.

11:40–11:50
|
EGU24-9536
|
ECS
|
Highlight
|
On-site presentation
Fabian Dablander, Maien Sachisthal, Viktoria Cologna, Noel Strahm, Anna Bosshard, Nana-Maria Grüning, Alison Green, Cameron Brick, Adam Aron, and Jonas Haslbeck

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.

11:50–11:55
11:55–12:05
|
EGU24-18782
|
ECS
|
On-site presentation
André Jüling and Iris Keizer

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.

12:05–12:15
|
EGU24-19960
|
ECS
|
On-site presentation
Arthur Oldeman, Iris Keizer, and André Jüling

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.

12:15–12:25
|
EGU24-15634
|
Highlight
|
On-site presentation
Sylvain Kuppel and the Scientifiques en rebellion collective

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.

12:25–12:30

Posters on site: Tue, 16 Apr, 10:45–12:30 | Hall X1

Display time: Tue, 16 Apr, 08:30–Tue, 16 Apr, 12:30
Chairpersons: Odin Marc, Elodie Duyck, Rosa Rantanen
X1.101
|
EGU24-8098
Emilie Jardé, Laure Guérit, Val Kaupp, Annick Battais, Pierre Dietrich, Marion Fournereau, Géraldine Gourmil, Laurent Jeanneau, and Frédérique Moreau

As people from a research lab, we are committed to participate in limiting the increase of Earth's average temperature and try to resolve this dilemma: how can we carry on producing knowledge and ideas in a world of limited resources. We are aware of the need for an environmental transition that would be achieved for our professional aspect/life by a profound evolution of our research practices (ie: French CNRS ethics committee: “integrating environmental issues into research practices_ an ethical responsibility”, opinion n° 2022-43).

The Sustainable Development & Social Responsibility working group of the research laboratory “Géosciences Rennes” was created in 2021 to (i) estimate the annual C footprint by using GES1.5 (Research Consortium Laboratory 1.5) protocol, (ii) propose awareness-raising and training initiatives and communicate, (iii) propose actions to reduce our environmental impacts. Based on the GES1.5 toolkit, we have determined our environmental impact from 2019 to 2022 through the calculation of the C footprints of 3 main domains: purchases, scientific missions and operation of the premises whose respective C footprint are 879, 520 and 708 and 775 T CO2eq, corresponding to 5.8, 3.6, 5.1 and 5.1 T CO2eq/person. The purchase of goods and services is the main item, representing 48 ± 7 % (mean ± SD) of the total C footprint over the 4 years. Scientific missions represent 16 ± 8 %. Sanitary restrictions induced a drastic decrease of this C footprint in 2020 and 2021, but it has resumed and increased since.

These data were the corner stone of collaborative workshops (participatory workshops, surveys, suggestion boxes…) to invent our low-carbon laboratory and to vote a transition plan based on specific actions to collectively reduce the C footprint. The propositions do not intend to limit freedom to carry out research, but at transforming the way we do research to adapt to environmental constraints our societies are facing. 36 propositions were submitted to vote in autumn 2023 and 89% of the staff (about 150 persons) expressed an opinion. 26 propositions received more than 50% of “yes”, and will therefore be gradually implemented over 6 years (2024-2030) as the reduction targets are set for 2030 (ambition: -45% compared with 2019). The trajectory and relevancy of the adopted propositions will be re-evaluated annually by calculating the laboratory's C footprint.

Our experience shows that appropriation of the issues takes time, which we no longer have. It emphasizes the need to go further than awareness measures. In addition, working at the lab level results in an average that conceals the considerable heterogeneity in terms of staff status, thematic profiles and methods used (observation/experimentation/ modelling). Such heterogeneity generates a plurality of situations and it is uneasy to define just only strategy. More precise C footprints need to be defined, potentially on a one by one discipline basis, in order to identify avenues of research that will enable these disciplines to adapt to the conditions of a post-transition society.

How to cite: Jardé, E., Guérit, L., Kaupp, V., Battais, A., Dietrich, P., Fournereau, M., Gourmil, G., Jeanneau, L., and Moreau, F.: From carbon footprint to transition plan in a French geosciences laboratory, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-8098, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-8098, 2024.

X1.102
|
EGU24-9671
Juan Antonio Ballesteros-Canovas, Emilio L. Pueyo, Blas Valero Garcés, Concepción Ayala, Angeliki Karanasiou, Juan Tomás Vázquez Garrido, José María González-Jiménez, Eva Calvo, María del Pilar Mata Campo, José Javier Álvaro Blasco, and Ana Moreno

The Geosciences for a Sustainable Planet network is an initiative reinforced by the recent integration of the Spanish Geological Survey (IGME) and the Oceanographic Spanish Institute (IEO) within the Spanish Scientific Research Council (CSIC). The network is aimed to provide Geosciences in Spain with a collaborative framework, to maximize synergies and address sustainability and future challenges with a planetary perspective. The network shares the strategic vision for the study and care of planet Earth as the only home available for our future, as embraced by many international organizations (e. g. the European Geosciences Union (EGU), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), and the European Marine Board (EMB)).

In Spain, Geosciences have played a fundamental role in properly assessing, managing, and seeking solutions for several natural and anthropogenic crises, e.g. the oil spill after the sinking of the Prestige petroleum vessel, the dumping of toxic mine sludge in Aznalcóllar, the eruption of the Cumbre Vieja volcano in La Palma island, the 2011 earthquake of Lorca, the environmental collapse of the Mar Menor oastal lagoon, or the decline in the groundwaters of Doñana National Park. Geoscientists have engaged as first responders with government agencies in emergency situations. Besides, geosciences is providing essential knowledge for public administration, as well as energy and mineral resources companies, water supply, contamination and waste elimination and reuse, and adaptation to geological and natural hazards. The network will enhance the capacity of the CSIC to respond to both, societal and public administration demands.

Geosciences also provide the temporal and spatial scale to place current climate and environmental crises in the appropriate context. The network will implement outreach activities to illustrate the interactions of surface processes and biosphere with climatic fluctuations, atmospheric CO2 variations, sea-level changes, biodiversity collapses, etc, during the evolution of life on Earth over millions of years. We believe an essential aspect of science's contribution to sustainability is improving the communication of trans-disciplinary knowledge to citizens, future generations, administrations, and companies so they can take informed decisions. The Geoscience network will focus on outreach actions, training new generations of Geoscientists and technology and knowledge transfer.

The Geosciences network seeks to facilitate the integration of research groups in the disciplines of Earth Sciences to improve our knowledge of the planet's geological processes across temporal scales ranging from millions of years to instrumental observation. This integration of basic and applied knowledge will enable Geosciences to provide tools to address the social challenges of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Among them, we have selected four main areas: (1) energy and ecological transition, (2) access to water and geological resources, (3) mitigation and adaptation to geological hazards and risks, and (4) tools for solving environmental and climate crises. We believe that Geosciences network will offer the spatial dimension (from local to planetary) and temporal insight (natural variability beyond the human scale) to provide a common framework with a global, integrative, transversal, and multidisciplinary vision to tackle these challenges.

How to cite: Ballesteros-Canovas, J. A., Pueyo, E. L., Valero Garcés, B., Ayala, C., Karanasiou, A., Vázquez Garrido, J. T., González-Jiménez, J. M., Calvo, E., Mata Campo, M. P., Álvaro Blasco, J. J., and Moreno, A.: Geosciences for a Sustainable Planet: a new collaborative network to address societal and environmental challenges in the Anthropocene, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-9671, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-9671, 2024.

X1.103
|
EGU24-19470
|
Highlight
|
Laurent Husson and the Scientifiques en Rébellion collective

Greenwashing sounds like a trivial manoeuvre that can easily be circumvented. In practice, private companies and institutions deploy a wealth of inventiveness to take away your vigilance. As a canonical example, it took forever before it was realized and admitted that the tobacco industry had a tremendous health burden. As scientists, we have the means to scrutinize the borderline communication, that stands half way between journalistic investigation and activism. That is the purpose of Scientist Rebellion in particular, which is particularly concerned with environmental challenges. Of course, it often requires to go beyond our daily scientific expertises, that we are trained for. Using two recent examples, I will showcase two case studies from Scientist Rebellion in France. The first one deals with the analysis of financial institutions regarding their oil and gas strategies, and the subsequent media coverage of activist communication, and an insider view on the impact of it had on the orientation of their strategies. The second one is an exploration of the governmental communication on adaptation strategies to climate change, with consideration on its political implications. 

How to cite: Husson, L. and the Scientifiques en Rébellion collective: Scientific debunking of institutional and corporate communication, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-19470, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-19470, 2024.

X1.104
|
EGU24-18757
|
ECS
Rosa Rantanen

Building transdisciplinary solutions at the first ever Climate Security Festival

In September 2023, the first ever Climate Security Festival was organized in Helsinki, Finland. The event gathered close to 100 participants including researchers, civil society actors, climate security experts, artists, activists, students and others at the Finnish Meteorological Institute for two days.

The idea of the festival was to bring people together and to enable discussing the risks related to climate change in an open and equal space. The two-day program was built around parallel workshop sessions, with the aim of strengthening and fostering cooperation between different sectors. The workshop topics were: 1) War and its effects on climate and the environment 2) Climate, death & (mental) wellbeing and 3) Who owns the climate security discussion? In addition, the festival included two keynote talks, joint discussion, a transdisciplinary poster session, artistic performances and side program; a safety walk, a photography exhibition and a collaboration movie screening and panel discussion in collaboration with Finland’s biggest film festival. The event was organized in person and participants were encouraged to leave aside their electronic devices, titles and prejudice.

Based on the encouraging results and feedback from participants, some key findings from the festival can be pointed out and utilized in building sustainable collaborations and co-creating climate solutions in geosciences and beyond. The results indicate, for example, the importance of;

  • embracing a truly transdisciplinary approach (including non-academic methods)
  • putting the work in building safer spaces for discussing ethical, fundamental and even painful topics in the context of climate change and geosciences
  • involving artists, art institutions and artistic methods in climate security related discussions and action in non-performative roles
  • expanding ownership of the discussion on climate change related risks beyond ‘traditional’ research and security/foreign political frameworks

Results are presented briefly with visual materials from the festival, workshop proceedings and participant feedback.

The festival was organized by the Safer Climate network (Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research, University of Helsinki) in collaboration with the Committee of 100 in Finland. The next festival will be organized in 2024.

How to cite: Rantanen, R.: Building transdisciplinary solutions at the first ever Climate Security Festival, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-18757, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-18757, 2024.

X1.105
|
EGU24-19128
Lea Bonnefoy and the IPSL Climactions

For several decades now, research communities working on the climate, its changes, including current global warming, and its consequences have been recommending drastic reductions in human-made greenhouse gas emissions and, more generally, in the ecological footprint of human activities. This implies the implementation over the next 10 to 20 years of profound and rapid systemic transformations. The latest IPCC reports show that such transformations are only possible if they involve all parts/sectors of society. Given the existence of a range of ecological constraints and the foreseeable limits to scientific and technical advances, the transformations to be implemented must also include a strong component of sufficiency ("avoidance”).

Since 2016, IPSL scientists and support staff have been working together along these lines to transform the institute's professional practices.  This engagement is generally seen as : (i) a necessity: to initiate a transition in its research practices that will bring its professional behavior in line with the message of climate urgency that it has been diffusing for over 30 years; (ii) an opportunity: to accelerate the transition at a societal level by opening up new channels of exchange with society, encouraging collective action by example, and reinforcing the credibility of its warning message; (iii) a safeguard: collective bottom-up thinking at laboratory level to ensure that this transition takes place with maximum respect for our research practices and our well-being at work, and is not imposed by potentially inappropriate top-down measures.

Achievements include (i) the development of methodologies for calculating the carbon footprint generated by staff activities and professional practices, (ii) concrete contributions to the reduction of the environmental footprint of professional travels, digital and high performance computing activities, purchases and finally observation of the earth. We will present here our approach, methodologies, achievements, and reflections at this stage, with the hope to stimulate exchange with other ongoing or emerging initiatives in other parts of the world.  

How to cite: Bonnefoy, L. and the IPSL Climactions: IPSL climactions and the bottom-up ecological transformation of  a climate research institute (2016-2024), EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-19128, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-19128, 2024.

X1.106
|
EGU24-20093
Iris Keizer, Arthur Oldeman, and André Jüling

The current climate and environmental crisis requires immediate societal changes. Here, we propose a discussion on whether scientists should engage in climate action. Activism offers a new avenue for climate advocacy that goes beyond traditional methods. We explore how scientists engaging in climate activism can educate the general public and press for urgent action and the conditions under which scientific activism can be most effective. 


Using historical and recent examples of non-violent civil disobedience by scientists, including actions we joined and/or supported as members of Scientist Rebellion, we demonstrate how such activism can be effective in complementing classical approaches to public education about the urgency of the climate and environmental crises, as well as in pushing for critically needed political action. We invite all scientists to engage in a discussion on whether we should engage in climate action as we acknowledge the complexities around scientific values, ethics, authority, and integrity. 



How to cite: Keizer, I., Oldeman, A., and Jüling, A.: Beyond Traditional Science Advocacy: Should Scientists engage in Climate Action? , EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-20093, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-20093, 2024.

X1.107
|
EGU24-9910
Odin Marc, Loïs Monnier, and Mickael Coriat

Recently, in the context of intensifying calls for a rapid decarbonation of the economy and energy systems, there has been a growing interest in developing the use of hydrogen, either as a fuel or as an energy storage system. However, hydrogen production suffers from various drawbacks, due to its carbon footprint or cost, which has led the field of geosciences to renew its interest in the possibility to collect naturally occurring hydrogen (so called "white hydrogen"), found in gas reservoirs or in hydrothermal waters for example, or stimulate natural production of hydrogen before harvesting it (so called "orange hydrogen").
Querying the Web of Science database, the average number of annual scientific publications including "natural hydrogen" in their title or abstract, was steady around 2 between 1984 and 2016, it was 6 over 2017-2019, 16 over 2020-2022 and reaching 27 in 2023, thus appearing to follow an exponential growth. Similarly in media in France we retrieved 37 articles mentioning "natural hydrogen" between 2010 and 2019, with terms such as "infancy", "pilot project" or "future energy?" , while there were 44 between 2020-2022 and 227 in 2023 alone, with terms such as "rush", "game changer", "revolution" or "bright hopes".
This exponential growth and the rapid shift toward very enthusiastic vocabulary make us hypothesize that the rising interest in natural hydrogen is a process similar to an economic bubble, in which a commodities is over-valued during a transient period.
In this work we will present reflexive work based on an analysis of the recent scientific literature and on associated media coverage, on basic comparisons between energy available from recent H2 fluxes or estimated reservoirs and from other renewable energy sources, and on semi-directive interviews of some geoscientist specialists of hydrogen.
These elements allow us to confront this hypothesis and to gain insights on the intertwined effects that may favor the over-valuation of natural hydrogen. In particular, we also discuss reasons why geoscientists contribute, actively or not, to the growth of a speculative bubble, a mechanism generally associated with irrational market dynamics. We do so by exploring the potential roles of undeclared conflicts of interests, temptation to access facilitated research funding, lack of interdisciplinary analysis, and of the predominant belief that technological innovation or adjustments is needed and sufficient to address the ecological emergencies.

How to cite: Marc, O., Monnier, L., and Coriat, M.: An example of reflexive and ethical work on a geoscientific speculation bubble: the case of natural hydrogen, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-9910, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-9910, 2024.

X1.108
|
EGU24-11091
|
Highlight
Iris-Amata Dion and Xavier Henrion

For over 30 years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been synthesizing the state of scientific knowledge on global climate change and communicating it through a series of reports. These reports highlight both the responsibility of humans in triggering this rapid climate change and the direct threat it represents for living organisms including humans. However, despite being freely available to all, many still lack basic understanding of the climate system and the associated anthropogenic forcings. One explanation to this is that these reports are not made intelligible to people outside the academic world and the decision-making sphere. The graphic novel format offers the advantage to blend art and science, making it easier for non-scientific readers to access the information contained in the IPCC reports. Therefore, we proposed an alternative way of presenting the IPCC findings through the collaboration between a climate scientist and a cartoonist. We interviewed 9 authors of the three main IPCC working groups to present the content of these reports in an accessible and intelligent graphic novel named Climate Horizons


In the story, two main characters engage in a dialogue with these IPCC co-authors allowing them to discover the complexity of natural ecosystems, climate inaction and political power struggles. While explaining their field of study, each author shares a vision of what their role as geoscientists should be in the face of urgent climate and environmental issues. Over the course of the story, the main characters gradually change the way they see the world, and go through a range of emotions (shock, denial, anger, acceptance, etc.) as they become aware of the major problem of climate change.

This approach by committed citizens and researchers responds to the need to be informed about possible solutions and encourages individual and collective reflection to imagine new possible horizons.

How to cite: Dion, I.-A. and Henrion, X.: Climate Horizons: a graphic novel of key IPCC findings to reach a wider audience, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-11091, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-11091, 2024.

X1.109
|
EGU24-11767
Simon Barbot, Guillaume Roullet, and Guillaume Serazin

In the attempt to look back on our practices and to plan their evolution, a debate has been conducted in our lab to share the different perceptions about the “slow-science” concept. This debate surprisingly gathered more curiosity than expected and all profiles of scientists were represented from the BSc, PhD students and engineers to emeritus researchers. Suggestions have been made for future practices that would increase the quality of the scientific results and knowledge as well as better working conditions while reducing green gas emission. A generational inequity was pointed out to initiate the changes: early-career researchers are selected based on project-and-paper-productive metric, while established researchers have positions of influence throughout institutions. Although such changes would need institutional decisions and technical innovation for lowering the measurement’ impact, many suggestions are already feasible through hindsight and self-discipline.

How to cite: Barbot, S., Roullet, G., and Serazin, G.: “Slow science” concept: first insights of perceptions and suggestions in an oceanography laboratory, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-11767, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-11767, 2024.