How we define scientific excellence has an immediate, career-defining impact on geoscientists, particularly early- and mid-career researchers who contend with a series of short-time contracts, expectations of high mobility, and the relentless pressure to publish. Currently, the indicators we use to evaluate excellence in the geosciences are predominantly quantitative - including the number of peer-reviewed articles and citations, invited talks, awards won, funding sources obtained, publishing in “prestigious” journals, and positions held at prestigious institutions. However, all these indicators are biased and not representative of the impact of research on science and society. It is further increasingly recognised that they are often exclusionary for underrepresented groups and amplify imbalances of power and visibility.

This Union Symposia invites diverse voices to reflect on how scientific excellence and academic systems (including peer-review and grant evaluation) can evolve to become more sustainable and inclusive - and who needs to drive these changes. We will explore different proposals that can offer more robust support structures and flexible environments for underrepresented groups and researchers balancing family and career while also facilitating and enhancing scientific progress. In particular, we aim to challenge entrenched practices, reconsidering publication requirements before Ph.D. completion, rethinking how international mobility is weighted in grant evaluations, and transforming anonymous peer-review systems, with a power imbalance skewed in favor of reviewers, into open and transparent processes that foster scientific progress. We also aim to explore emerging indicators of excellent science, such as Open Science, FAIR research, research focusing on societal challenges, inter- to multi-disciplinary research, and the number of published Open Access datasets. We also discuss how to best integrate qualitative factors, such as a scientist’s open-mindedness to testing different ideas, dialog-oriented attitude during the peer-review process, objectivity in acknowledging their failures, collaborations with colleagues supporting competing hypotheses, and commitment to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI).
Come and join us and our three invited speakers (Prof. Thom Bogaard, Prof. Stuart Lane, and Prof. Stefanie Kaboth-Bahr) to make your voice heard.

In Roman mythology, the god Janus is often portrayed with two faces. He gazes both forward and backward, symbolizing duality: beginnings and endings, war and peace, past and future.
Our planet exhibits a similar dual nature. Certain natural processes are unequivocally destructive, such as earthquakes and tsunami, while others are essential for human life, like soil formation, the water cycle, and mineralization. Some processes, however, embody both aspects. Volcanic eruptions, for example, can cause widespread devastation, yet also create fertile soils that sustain dense human settlements, despite the ongoing risk.
This Union Symposium, which also serves as an introduction to the Geosciences Information for Teachers (GIFT) workshop, will explore three key aspects of Earth’s processes—volcanism, earthquakes, and energy issues—through the perspectives of three world-renowned experts.
Giorgia Stasi, from the Geological Survey of Belgium and President of the Energy, Resources and Environment (ERE) Division of the EGU, will address the challenges surrounding humanity’s energy needs and the potential issues these may cause.
Paolo Papale, volcanologist at the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV, Italy) will present the most recent developments in volcanic activity in Europe, focusing on Campi Flegrei and Mount Etna.
Jean-Philippe Avouac, California Institute of Technology (USA), will discuss the latest major earthquakes and examine whether predicting the time and location of these events is possible.
Their insights will help us better understand how scientific research and technological innovation can shed light on the planet’s complexity and guide us in coexisting with it.
The audience will include around 120 high school teachers from various countries and students from high schools in Vienna, and scientists attending the EGU General Assembly. As in a past US organized by the EC, the complete immersion of science teachers in a truly scientific environment, such as this event and the EGU General Assembly as a whole, and their direct interaction with world-leading geoscientists are expected to spark curiosity about scientific researchresearch. Teachers, in turn, will transmit this curiosity to their students, helping to foster interest in Earth Sciences.
Conversely, scientists participating in the GA will gain greater of the EGU’s educational programs, which may stimulate their interest in participating to these programs.

Cluster was originally proposed to ESA in 1982, was subject to a launch failure in 1996, but was rebuilt after great effort from the community and its four spacecraft were successfully launched in 2000. This session, centred around a new documentary about the mission, will discuss the story of Cluster, its science and some lessons learned. In particular it will include aspects of the making of documentary itself and the unique challenges and opportunities of telling the story of a mission that has a history spanning almost 50 years while also grappling with the creative process of communicating the esoteric nature of heliophysics/space plasma science to the broader public as well as the unique approaches employed by the documentary team.

Space exploration encompasses a broad range of activities, from preparatory and analogue work on Earth, through activities in LEO and to exploration of the different provinces of the Solar System. It is currently characterized by a new wave of Lunar missions, an expanding role of private players, and the participation of an increasing number of countries and space agencies. While this “New Space” context offers an increasing number of opportunities for geosciences and space-related sciences at large, it also comes with increasing threats on the environments of Earth and the Moon, and with strong requirements on a durable and sustainable perspective to space exploration, and on preserving the resources and unique scientific and cultural values of celestial bodies.
In this context, the Committee on SPAce Research (COSPAR) of the International Science Council (ISC) is actively preparing for its 46th Scientific Assembly in Florence a new edition of its RoadMap for Exploration, building on the strong legacy of the previous RoadMap “Toward a global space exploration program: A stepping stone approach”, by Ehrenfreund et al., published in 2012. The COSPAR Panel on Exploration (PEX) invites EGU26 participants to take advantage of this session to discuss the objectives and implementation means of the establishment at the international level of a “Virtuous Circle of Solar System Exploration”, which should connect Science, Exploration and Environmental Stewardship to build a sustainable future for space exploration.
We propose four goals for discussion of this new Exploration Roadmap:
1. Position space research at the forefront of the new multi-stakeholder era of space exploration;
2. Maximize the scientific return of space exploration programs via enhanced international cooperation;
3. Promote environmental stewardship of celestial bodies to preserve their environments, resources and cultural heritage;
4. Identify and promote new approaches to space exploration that will guarantee its sustainability.
We will discuss these goals with a panel of experts representing the different components of space exploration stakeholders. One of the objectives of the panel discussion will be to identify specific European views on and contributions to the design of a robust, sustainable and environment-friendly development of space exploration over the two coming decades.

The planetary boundaries framework defines a safe operating space for humanity, measuring with indicators and thresholds how pressures on the environment have destabilized the Earth system with profound consequences for environmental health, economic development and social equity. The freshwater boundary, initially defined as consumption of no more than 4000 cubic kilometres of freshwater per year, has now been considered transgressed. Yet this global figure conceals essential details: how are pressures spread across regions and sectors, and how do surface and groundwater each contribute? If these combined pressures are indeed disrupting the Earth’s water cycle, what actions can we take to bring it back onto a sustainable path?

This Union-wide Symposium brings together diverse perspectives on how water, land use and ecological systems, respond across levels to climate change and changing human activities, from the global dimension to national policies and local river basin management. The discussion will highlight both research advances and operational strategies that the geoscience community can mobilize to confront these challenges, empower stakeholders, and identify pathways to more sustainable management within the planet’s freshwater boundaries.

The climate challenge is no longer only about understanding the Earth system, it is also about understanding ourselves as humans. As a global society, response to climate change information and climate action policies is shaped not only by scientific evidence, but also by moral values, cultural identities, religious beliefs, fears, and psychological dynamics. Attitudes that may appear irrational often reflect deeper questions of meaning, trust, and social belonging. How can scientists and governments communicate climate science in ways that resonate with diverse societies without resorting to manipulative tactics? How can decision-makers design ethical and inclusive policies that inspire meaningful action at individual, community, and societal levels?

This Union Symposium will bring together experts from multiple disciplines to explore these questions through both scientific research and practical experience. Speakers will examine the moral, psychological, cultural, and social dimensions that shape public engagement with climate change. Perspectives from religious traditions, as well as indigenous and marginalized communities, will broaden the dialogue and offer insights into how climate communication and policy can become more inclusive, trustworthy, and impactful.

Climate change is reshaping the landscape of risk and hazards across Europe. Natural hazards (such as wildfires, flooding, droughts, heatwaves, etc) are increasingly occurring together or in quick succession, with one event exacerbating the impacts of, and reducing the resilience of communities and environments to another. In some cases, certain hazards can even trigger the next event at a pace or frequency that outstrips our ability to respond and react to the first. These “multi-hazards” may also compound with other geopolitical or social crises, making them overwhelming for emergency services and governments. The mitigations and protections in place across nation states from civil protection architecture, to monitoring, analysis and warning systems, must evolve to inform adaptation strategies and protect communities.

In this new era of climate hazards and risks, the EU has launched the Preparedness Union Strategy, which aims to prepare Europe by bolstering foresight and anticipation capabilities, promoting population preparedness, and among these building a first EU-wide climate adaptation plan.

This Union Symposia will explore how Europe can ensure the use of the best possible scientific evidence into the development of integrated, multi-level strategies for coping with multi-hazard and climate enhanced risks. It will consider the challenges faced when incorporating scientific evidence into both developing and committed policies and evaluate the importance of community engagement and acceptance in the process. This session will illustrate how for natural hazards, siloed research prevents preparedness and reduces resilience.

The session will rely on an interactive format where scientists and decision-makers jointly workshop the impacts of and solutions for integrating disciplines, regions, approaches, and techniques to effectively promote resilient and effective adaptation frameworks. Members of the EGU Climate Hazard and Risk Task Force will share their perspectives from responding to a call for evidence related to the development of the European Climate Adaptation Plan by the European Commission.

The European Green Deal, launched by the European Commission under President von der Leyen in 2019 to reduce emissions by at least 50% by 2030, will transform Europe’s economy, energy, transport, and industrial sectors. Moreover, building on this trajectory, the new 2040 climate target aims for a 90% reduction compared to 1990 levels. Achieving this ambitious goal requires substantial investment in innovation, clean technology, and green infrastructure, while ensuring a just transition for the communities most affected by several of these structural changes.

Scientists, with their disciplinary expertise and emerging technologies, play a critical role in driving green innovation. Thus, their active participation in entrepreneurial ventures and the innovation process is also essential for the successful implementation of the Green Deal.

This Union Symposia will explore programmes, challenges, and opportunities for scientists to engage in the innovation process, and how a just transition can be ensured for communities most affected by structural changes in the economy and energy systems. We will particularly focus on where innovation and especially R&D, focusing on the best practices that have successfully supported green innovation. It will also examine political, economic, and social barriers of greenovation, and discuss strategies to ensure a just transiton for affected communities.

Methane was discovered 250 years ago, by Alessandro Volta in 1776, when he investigated ‘inflammable air’ in bubbles from Bruschera swamp, close to Lake Maggiore, Italy. Then, it was almost exclusively from natural sources. Today, anthropogenic methane from the natural gas and coal industries, ruminant and rice agriculture, landfills and sewage facilities, and from biomass burning and crop waste fires, contribute the bulk of annual global emissions.
In the 2021 Global Methane Pledge, 159 nations committed to cut anthropogenic emissions by at least 30 per cent from 2020 levels by 2030. Now in 2026, at the halfway stage, progress is limited and importantly the global methane burden is still rising rapidly.
Can mitigation of emissions save the Paris Agreement? This is very challenging but numerous viable options for emission reduction are emerging and being implemented. Energy industry emissions urgently need to be reduced, as do landfill and biodigester emissions. Agricultural emissions are large and often seen to be intractable, but many can be reduced.
This Union session will discuss methane in the natural atmosphere, and its role in anthropogenic climate change. Topics include historical evolution, major sources and key sinks, and progress and the task of mitigation, for natural gas, coal and oil sources, landfills and sewage facilities, and the wide range of agricultural emissions.
Volta, A. 1777. Sull’Aria infiammabile nativa delle paludi. Nella Stamperia Di Giuseppe Marelli, Milano.

Over the past decade, work and initiatives implementing equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) have grown drastically. Many institutions across the western world and beyond have embraced EDI programmes with pride and enthusiasm.
In the last couple of years, however, criticisms escalated and EDI values are being discredited by a growing scepticism, even from the general public and often also from highly organized orchestrated anti-EDI campaigns. In many cases, as a result of political pressure or recent government funding decisions, EDI programs are being significantly scaled back or even entirely dismantled. One of the arguments that was raised is that EDI has become overly ideological, rigid in its adherence to a doctrine. EDI is sometimes considered responsible for the introduction of the so-called positive bias, or a bias against categories that have been previously favoured. Other concerns have evolved around the meaning of gender differences, introducing at times ambiguity in the concepts of equality and diversity. Another reason of concern is given by actions that were considered limiting the human rights. Examples are the cases related to free speech, where speakers were uninvited or impeded to talk. In particular in science, it has been a reason of concern as the attitude of resisting to a diversity of opinions can be perceived as counter-productive for progress.
Some voices argue that instead of building on what people have in common, EDI culture focuses on their differences, often perceived as exclusionary. These positions have both played in favour of opposing political platforms and alienated people with more moderate views, or people less ’educated’ on EDI issues. Today, sadly, the EDI term has taken on a new and sometimes divisive meaning.
EDI movements need to regain ground in their defence for fairness and coalition building, concerned with all sorts of inequalities, backgrounds and views. The concept of inclusivity in EDI is crucial in preventing societal division. Re-thinking EDI is essential to science and society in these challenging times.
In this Great Debate we aim to discuss the criticisms to EDI and identify strategies to move forward with a constructive attitude, with the awareness of the benefits EDI has achieved, and a recognition of the values an inclusive science culture brings to science. Invited speakers will include influential members of the geosciences community and beyond.

In 2025, the Commission on Geoethics of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) developed recommendations for the ethical application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in geosciences. The report discusses eight themes where ethical concerns surrounding AI are particularly relevant to the geosciences: human responsibility in AI use; transparency and explainability of AI systems; bias and fairness in data, models and algorithms; protection of personal data and informed consent; stakeholder and community participation; environmental protection; scientific integrity in research, publishing and education; and the geopolitical implications of AI deployment. Moving beyond high-level principles, the report makes actionable recommendations.

As AI capabilities and adoption in the geosciences grow, profound questions arise. In this Great Debate, the panellists will address key issues raised by AI applications and the necessary ethical considerations, and will invite the audience to share their views.

As our world approaches 1.5°C of global warming, as worldwide emissions continue to grow, and the impacts of climate change escalate, there is a general sentiment that we are running out of time. Increasingly, geoengineering concepts are being pushed into the media and policy spheres, using this sentiment of urgency to frame these concepts as “buying us time” for mitigation. There are many concepts, with the most advanced concepts including solar radiation management (marine cloud brightening, stratospheric aerosol injection mostly), sea ice thickening/brightening, sea curtains, tarping mountain glaciers, ocean fertilisation or alkalinity enhancement, as well as ocean biomass dumping, and many more. Some might target the root cause of our rising temperatures by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but with detrimental effects on the ecosystems impacted. Other concepts would just attenuate the symptoms of our planet, the rising global temperature.

Are geoengineering concepts a distraction from our urgent need for adaptation and mitigation? In a world where research funding, political focus on the green transition, and geopolitical order are dwindling, are we reducing our chances of reaching the highest possible mitigation ambition to stay well below 2°C and pursue efforts to stay below 1.5°C by even discussing these options? Several of the targeted ecosystems (e.g. our deep ocean, cloud-aerosol interactions, etc.) are not yet well understood at a fundamental level. Is it appropriate to advocate for their manipulation without first conducting adequate fundamental research?

In this Great Debate, we aim to have a constructive and open dialogue on the value of delving into geoengineering concepts in the context of mitigation targets and policy dialogues.

Across the globe, the pathways from scientific evidence to political action are anything but uniform. While some researchers are encouraged to engage directly in shaping national agendas, others operate in systems where science-policy boundaries are strictly delineated.

Rather than asking what should be the role of scientists—a debate often limited by normative frameworks—this Science for Policy Great Debate asks: What could be the role of scientists in various governance and institutional contexts? The aim is to spark a forward-looking conversation on how scientists could engage across policy systems—acknowledging structural, cultural, and political diversity—and what mechanisms are needed to support that engagement sustainably. This Great Debate will also look ahead: What emerging structures and support systems are necessary to equip scientists with the tools, networks, mandates, incentives, and trust to work across science-policy boundaries? How can international collaboration respect national context while fostering shared ambition?

This session brings together researchers, policymakers, and science advisors from different countries and sectors to explore how scientists navigate their responsibilities and opportunities at the science-policy interface. How do political cultures, institutional structures, and public expectations influence the mandates scientists take on—from knowledge brokers and community advocates to embedded advisors and Horizon Europe Mission leads?

As we approach the IPCC’s AR7 era, the landscape of climate prediction is more diverse—and contentious—than ever. Should we trust high-resolution, process-based models rooted in physical laws, or embrace the promise of machine learning, which some claim will soon surpass traditional approaches? With Earth observations and hybrid frameworks adding further complexity, a critical question emerges: can data-driven models anticipate a future climate that will be fundamentally different from anything in the observational record? This debate is urgent, as society demands actionable guidance on climate risks and tipping points.
At the same time, global leadership in climate science is shifting. With recent political developments in the US, the European Union faces both a challenge and an opportunity to shape the scientific and policy agenda. What should Europe’s role be in steering the next generation of climate modeling and ensuring robust, transparent advice for decision-makers? This session brings together leading voices from science, policy, and technology to debate the future of climate prediction, the limits of machine learning, and the responsibilities of the EU in a rapidly changing world.

Earth system models and associated finer resolution models are key tools for the simulation of the feedbacks and linkages between soil, hydrological, geomorphological, and ecosystem processes, and to simulate the water and energy balance and their interactions at different scales. However, there are important coupled feedbacks on the scale of years to decades missing in many terrestrial ecosystem models. For example, water cycle patterns affect soil carbon stocks and microbial community structures, which in turn affects the hydraulic and ecophysiological response of the soil. Soil organic carbon fraction is a key determining factor for soil porosity and water holding capacity that drives soil moisture dynamics in hydrological models, and the soil moisture, in turn, drives soil organic carbon decomposition rates – creating a dynamic feedback that is often ignored in models. Another example is the coupling and feedback between hydrology and geomorphology in processes such as soil erosion and landslides and related vegetation patterns. Landscapes change and adapt to atmospheric forcing, changing climatic conditions and anthropogenic activities, leading to a changed hydrological behavior of the earth surface. These dynamics are not included in the larger scale hydrological models, nor discussed as critical. As such soil (eco)systems are often considered static in models of freshwater stocks and fluxes at catchment to global scales, and important interactions over time scales as short as a year or a decade are overlooked. While no model can include all processes, ongoing developments in computation and earth system science urge us to continue to press the boundary of model development and to include important feedback processes.
This session will contribute to the debate on which processes and stocks in the terrestrial ecosystem need to be included in modeling efforts that aim to increase our understanding of the coupled atmospheric-terrestrial water cycle. On the one hand this session aims to raise awareness of the importance of these feedbacks and that soil is more than a parameter that can be considered static for models that are run for several decades, and on the other hand provide a dialogue between contrasting opinions on what is important to include in models. In other words, the session will provide a platform to discuss when we need a detailed representation of soil-related feedback processes and when we can simplify these.

For several centuries, scientific journals have been the primary means for disseminating and validating scientific knowledge. They provide platforms for peer review, ensure long-term archiving, and often form rankings by which researchers are evaluated. However, the digital era opened new possibilities for faster and more interactive scientific publishing, though with different levels of rigor in scientific quality control, e.g., open access preprint servers, repositories and discussion forums with public peer review. At the same time, the pay-to-publish model led some commercial journal publishers to impose high article processing charges, prioritizing profit over quality, while the scientific quality assurance is performed by scientists. These developments raise fundamental questions: Should scientific journals remain essential in the evolving publishing landscape? To what extent can alternative publishing platforms complement or even replace them? What are advantages and limitations of different publishing models? How can publishing companies as service providers effectively support scientist-driven publishing in the future? In the debate, we will explore these questions and discuss the future of scientific publishing with a focus on transparency, cost efficiency and scientific integrity.
Confirmed panelists:
Ken Carslaw, Professor Univ Leeds, UK, co-founder of Atmos. Chem Phys. (EGU), the first interactive open access journal
Laurence El Khouri, Deputy Director of the Open Research data department (DDOR), CNRS, France
Martin Rasmussen, Managing Director Copernicus Publications, Göttingen, Germany
Ludo Waltman, Scientific director and professor of Quantitative Science Studies, Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, NL

This session is dedicated to the award division ceremony and medal lecture of the Christiaan Huygens Medal (2026 edition), conferred by the Geosciences Instrumentation and Data Systems (GI) Division of the European Geosciences Union.
The Christiaan Huygens Medal was established by the GI Division to recognise outstanding and sustained contributions to the advancement of geoscientific instrumentation, observational methodologies, and data systems within the scope of the Division. The medal is awarded for a major innovation, development, or discovery that has had a significant and lasting impact on its field, or for a coherent body of work carried out over an extended period that has led to substantial scientific and technological progress.

This session hosts the Hans Oeschger Medal Lecture by Friederike E.L. Otto "The added value of yet another attribution study".
A citation will be given by Clair Barnes at the beginning of the session.

In this session the Stratigraphy Sedimentology and Paleontology Division (SSP) celebrates the Jean Baptiste Lamarck Medal. This year the SSP Jean Baptiste Lamarck Medal has been awarded to Benjamin Bomfleur for his contribution in the field of paleontology. A lecture by Benjamin Bomfleur will be part of this session.

Marie Tharp Medal Lecture by Christian Teyssier

The Marie Tharp Medal is awarded to scientists in recognition of their outstanding contributions to tectonics and structural geology. It acknowledges exceptional scientific achievements in advancing the understanding of tectonic processes that shape Earth's lithosphere and research that bridges these disciplines across spatial and temporal scales.

The award recognizes Prof. Teyssier for the transformative contributions to structural geology and tectonics. His pioneering research has significantly advanced our understanding of tectonic processes, encompassing the full spectrum from brittle to ductile deformation, from extensional to convergent regimes and from the mineralogical scale to orogenic systems. Prof. Teyssier has also left an extraordinary legacy as a mentor and educator, having trained and inspired countless geoscientists, many of whom are now influential leaders in their own right.

The Geodesy Division medal and award ceremony will feature the Geodesy Division Early Career Scientists (ECS) Award presentation given by Eva Börgens and the Vening Meinesz Medal lecture by Frank Flechtner.

In this session we celebrate the 2026 awardees of the Atmospheric Sciences division through the Vilhelm Bjerknes Medal Lecture by Jonathan Williams and the Atmospheric Sciences Division Outstanding ECS Award Lecture by Eva Pfannerstill.

As every year, SSP recognizes and rewards the most outstanding ECS in SSP fields. This year the Outstanding ECS Award has been awarded to Matthias Sinnesael. The session will see the lecture by Matthias abut his research work.

As global temperatures continue to shatter records, wildfires are no longer seasonal threats but permanent features of a burning planet. This press conference pulls back the curtain on the forensic evidence of a world in flux as it moves beyond abstract data to confront the raw friction between human preparedness and climate reality. Scientists will discuss the urgent blueprints required to navigate this landscape before the window for effective adaptation closes for good.

Participants:

Cyrielle Briand
INRAE, Aix-en-Provence, France

Douglas Ian Kelley
UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, UK

Farzad Ghasemiazma
University of Genoa, Italy

Lukáš Dolák
Global Change Research Institute CAS, Brno, Czechia

We are constantly emitting, often without realizing it. This press conference focuses on the hidden geography of our personal footprints—from the microfibers shed by fast fashion during a simple walk to the indoor pollutants generated in our kitchens. Experts will present the forensic data on how everyday human activities contribute to the atmospheric burden of plastics and chemicals.

Participants:

Sylwia Klaudia Dytłow
Institute of Geophysics Polish Academy of Sciences, Ks. Janusza 64, 01-452 Warsaw, Poland, Warszawa, Poland

Damianos Pavlidis
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Patras, Patras, Greece

Continuing its decade-long odyssey, NASA’s Juno mission reveals groundbreaking new findings from the gas giant. This briefing will cover never-before-shared updates from Juno’s latest orbits, offering fresh insights into Jupiter’s turbulent atmosphere, its deep interior, and the ongoing quest to understand our solar system’s most enigmatic giant. Speakers to be confirmed.

Technology often moves faster than the law. This briefing highlights the legislative black holes in European climate policy that leave communities vulnerable despite advanced early warning systems. In this press conference, scientists will provide insights on how extreme fire and heat are affecting vital sectors like finance and agriculture, and why current regulations are failing to protect the public.

Participants:

Tino Schneidewind
Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Kimani Bellotto
SISTEMA GmbH, Vienna, Austria

Katie Johnson
CMCC Foundation - Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change, Venice, Italy

Sujung Lee
Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Explore the mysteries of the deep sea and the hidden giants that inhabit it. From the geological triggers of Alaskan megatsunamis to the discovery of active submarine volcanoes, this press conference examines the seismic and acoustic signals of our oceans. Learn how the songs of blue whales are helping researchers map the rumbles of a restless seafloor.

Participants:

Eva Goblot
Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Christian Hübscher
University of Hamburg, Institute of Geophysics, Earth Sciences, Hamburg, Germany

Benedikt Haimerl
University of Hamburg, Institute of Geophysics, Hamburg, Germany

Stephen Hicks
University College London, UK

The green transition faces a literal energy drought. This press conference explores the collision of climate extremes and infrastructure, focusing on the phenomenon of Dunkelflauten (dark doldrums) where wind and solar fail simultaneously. From the choking impact of wildfire smoke on power grids to the survival strategies of modern cities, discover how science-driven policy must adapt to ensure a secure energy future.

Participants:

Iulian-Alin Rosu
Technical University of Crete, Greece

Philipp Heinrich
Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon, Geesthacht, Germany

Markus Schäfer
University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Cristina-Maria Iordan
NTNU, Trondheim, Norway