Scientists should get involved in the climate movement : a draft

As climate change is ramping up (carbon dioxyde emission rates are still increasing), the world is currently on a trajectory of rapid temperature increase. This temperature increase is predicted to lead to mass extinctions, food shortage, migrations, and possibly large-scale conflicts.

There is frequent questioning wether scientists should take an active role in the climate discussion, or restrain in the name of scientific neutrality. Here, I will give arguments on why we should get involved, because there is no such thing as scientific neutrality, because the danger is imminent, and mostly because we are responsible human beings.

The facts

The IPCC reports indicate a near-certainity of climate change, with temperatures most likely rising by several degrees. Actually, climate scientists all expect the temperature increase to be far beyond 2°C. Climate systems are usually non-linear, and a (very likely) increase of 3°C is incompatible with our lives as we know it (with mass extinctions, crop failures, migrations, wars). To save milions of human lives (not to mention biodiversity), it is necessary to dramatically alter the current trajectory.

The IPCC highlights the need for a global, concerted action, such that developping countries do not bear the bulk of burden of climate change adaptation and prevention, while developped country are historically responsible for most of the emitted carbon.

Role of scientists

The job definition of scientist is to produce new knowledge. A scientist is supposed to maintain their objectivity, i.e. to not distort facts in favor of an ideology. It is often assumed that scientists need to remain neutral. However, this is has no real basis. 18th-century philosophers were involved in political matters ; scientists such as Curie or Einstein were involved in the war effort, as scientists. Neutrality is therefore a myth.

Should scientists continue developping face-recognition software, as the technology is overwhelmingly used for surveillance purpose ? Should we continue studies in psychology funded by social media companies to increase their advertising impacts, while advertising fuels the climate crisis ? These questions highlight that the research activity is not neutral, as our research is embedded in our current world.

Our actions are all ethical choices. Military personel and employees can (and should) resign if their job missions go against their personal ethics ; scientists can choose their research field, and even wether to be a scientist. It is important to understand here that scientists can be part of the problem, rather than the solution. If we insist on doing our science ignoring the planetary constraints, we will actively promote the myth that science will solve it all ; based on the IPCC reports, we know it will not. As a scientist, we cannot keep to “business as usual”.

“Business as usual” is a crime

From the IPCC reports, it is clear ther our trajectory has to change to prevent the death and suffering of millions. As scientists, we know the meaning of a scientific consensus. We know that we are as sure of climate change and its dire consequences as we are of gravity, evolution, and such. Maybe small details need to be figured out, but the big picture is very clear.

As human beings, it is our ethical responsibility to act against injustice. Letting them happen is a crime. Crimes against humanity such as genocides happen through the action of a few and the inaction of many. As scientist, we therefore should act against global warming ; especially because we understand its certainty. We should also act because our words and actions have a lot of weight : scientist still harness much respect from the general public.

Taking action

So what should we do ? Make our research more frugal, take the streets, go on hunger strike ?

We should first get into a collective. While as scientists we are trained to work at the individual level, we know the power of the many. After all, scientific consensus is the result of the cumulated work of the science community. It is clear that changing our society will require large-scale actions. Joining a group will allow to have a higher coordination to perform larger-scale actions, and to have more weight on the public discussion. It also allows to have a broader perspective, and gather different expertise.

What kind of group should one join ? Of course, groups dedicated to decreasing the environmental impact of our research are good. But they do not adress the key issue we need to adress to reach non-catastrophic climate goals : drastically decrease our dependence on fossil fuels-fueled growth, that rely on increasing consumption. An infinite economic growth that is trivially incompatible with a finite world.

Therefore, maximal impact can be sought by joining groups dedicated to addressing the root cause of the problem. A particularly suited group is Scientist Rebellion other but groups as well ; think greenpeace, extinction rebellion, etc.

I find that scientists are often reluctant to joining a group if they do not agree a 100% to their doctrine. Consider that no group will be perfect or align 100% to your worldview (it is a high dimensional space after all). It is more rational to seek “sufficient alignment”, in which one identifies to the group core values and methods of actions. After all, as scientists, we should understand the concept of hierarchy of priorities. Our priority is getting out of the climate crisis.

Finding one’s place

As scientists, we like to collaborate, but we are used to standing out - not being a meaningless individual in a crowd. I was once asked by a friend, wether me participating to mass actions and filming videos for a climate activism group was not a waste of my skills. I refute this view. I am not an IPCC leader, and my voice should not carry so much more weight as others.

However, I do make use of skills I learnt while becoming a scientist : critical thinking, communication skills, working with others, and my creativity. Overall, I must say I’m pretty happy I’m not a climate scientist : my research is much less depressing, and my climate activism does make sense in my life. It is also a happy place, in which I constantly learn new things and aquire new skills, meet new friends, and enjoy the odd party.