The Unfulfilled Potential of U.S. Geoscience: Strategic Gaps in Climate Adaptation and Hazard Mitigation Efforts

The American Geosciences Institute, through its GRANDE project, has been evaluating how geoscience programs and professionals have leveraged the impacts of natural disasters to expand research and educational opportunities. We used natural disasters as a proxy for climate change impacts to better understand the community’s strategic response to events and risk tolerance to natural hazards. Given the fact that the discipline understands the causes, impacts, and risks of such natural events, we hypothesized that the geoscience community is particularly well-positioned to lead the way in adaptation and mitigation efforts related to climate and hazard impacts in their professional activities.

Within the United States, our findings indicated that between 2000 and 2020 there was no systemic engagement with climate and hazard impacts in terms of research production, research funding, or educational efforts. Additionally, we conducted several surveys regarding individual responses to natural disasters and climate impacts, including a cost-choice analysis of career decisions. The results showed little material response by geoscientists to specific climate impacts and scant consideration of hazard risk when considering job opportunities.

One noteworthy finding in the cost-choice analysis revealed that US geoscientists were more open to jobs in locations with higher risk when salaries increased above $50,000, and especially so when salaries exceeded $100,000 per year.  Except for Millennials, geoscientists across all other generational cohorts consistently opted for jobs with higher salaries regardless of other factors. Those choosing jobs with salaries less than $50,000 per year chose jobs in rural locations with relatively low hazard risk, whereas those choosing higher salary jobs, chose jobs primarily in urban settings, with higher hazard and crime risk. Higher income thresholds appeared to increase risk tolerance overall, with community amenities and resources significantly outweighing environmental risks.

From this analysis, it appears that the US geoscience community is not positioned as a proactive change agent relative to climate impacts on society, and there appears to be no long-term strategic investments in building the research and educational capacity, as well as the labor pool, to meet the expected demand for skilled professionals to address climate change and hazard impacts over the coming decade. Given the increasing frequency and severity of impacts from natural hazards, the cost of a lack of dedicated long-term investment in addressing these issues is staggering. Should the US geoscience community galvanize its focus around addressing climate impacts, the results of this study indicate that financial investments, especially in terms of occupational salaries, must meet a minimum threshold to attract geoscientists into these critical occupations. The drivers of this financial threshold are unknown, but we hypothesize that this is the socially accepted level for fundamental stability for individuals living in the United States, covering expenses such as insurance, healthcare, and housing.

We are interested in engaging in dialogue with colleagues outside of the United States to test whether different social systems provide the needed stability to enable scientists to be more effective agents of change.