Sometimes, Bruce C. Glavovic is so proud to be an environmental scientist that he tears up.
He wonders if any of it has been enough. Climate change is transforming the planet for the worse. Their work has mostly failed to get governments to address the issue. It is sad that scientists keep producing more of their research when it is not being heard.
He said that the 26 Conference of the Parties meetings were for heaven's sake. There are more scientific reports and charts.
Dr. Glavovic and two colleagues sent a shock through the normally cautious world of environmental research because of their frustration. They called on climate scientists to stop their research until nations take action on global warming.
The idea was called wrongheaded or worse by many researchers, as one put it on social media. Climate scientists have been asking themselves if what they are doing with their lives is making a difference. How can we get elected officials to act? Do we become activists? Is it possible that we would sacrifice our credibility as academics by doing so?
Dr. Glavovic believes that a pause on research would allow his fellow researchers to think about how best to use their skills in the small window humans have left for altering the planet's trajectory.
Climate change makes everyone feel small and large at the same time, making it hard to stop it. Climate scientists devote a lot of their time to the issue.
The coronaviruses have made scientists feel uneasy allies, that distrust and misinformation have weakened society, and that they can't work toward complex goals.
The thoughts were percolating as Dr. Glavovic worked with nearly 270 other experts on the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The new report concludes that global warming is out of proportion to our ability to cope.
The I.P.C.C. assessment is a multiyear effort by researchers and representatives from 195 governments. Every chart is fine-tuned to make sure it is backed by evidence. The work is not paid. Global climate talks have been given a crucial grounding in scientific fact by the panel that shared the peace prize. The reports don't prescribe policies for governments to act on. The options are laid out.
The panel's efforts made clear what the world needs to do. He thinks it would be better to make sure it gets done.
I have been involved with I.P.C.C. for the last five to six years.
He decided not to take part in the next assessment. He would like his fellow scientists to join him.
Many have weak faith in government action, but few seem ready to do so. Dozens of scientists were surveyed by Nature about their work on the recent I.P.C.C. report. Sixty percent said they believed the planet would warm by at least 3 degrees Celsius compared with preindustrial times. They said they had experienced distress related to climate change.
Even scientists who don't want to go on strike wonder how long they can keep serving as impartial, soft-spoken brokers of data and evidence as forests burn and carbon dioxide levels rise.
Wolfgang Cramer, one of the authors of the new I.P.C.C. report, said that that doesn't seem to work.
Scientists want their work to have an impact. Some of the most powerful political and economic forces on the planet are not up against most of them.
Maria Fernanda Lemos, an I.P.C.C. author, said that climate researchers tend to develop psychological protection and emotional withdrawal.
Iain White, a professor of environmental planning at the University of Waikato in New Zealand, felt a sense of futility when he looked up the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at different points in his life.
He was born in 1973, the year that the I.P.C.C. was created, and 350 in 1988, the year that he died.
Dr. White thought it would go up every year until he retired.
He said that scientists don't talk enough about the emotional toll of researching planetary calamity.
Smith, a professor at the University of the Sunshine Coast in Australia, said that he and his colleagues had wrestled with doubts about their work for a long time.
In early 2020, Dr. Smith, Dr. White, and Dr. Glavovic met up in New Zealand. They were going to sketch out a research project. They wondered why it was hard for research to make a difference. They concluded that the best way to get elected officials to act was to stop the research and I.P.C.C. assessments.
The professors called for a walk out to top scientific journals, but few people took up the offer.
None of us had ever had so many rejections. Their article was published in the journal Climate and Development.
Growing up as a white South African under apartheid was something that Dr. Glavovic came to detest. He risked jail time when he asked to be a conscientious objector.
He said it was an interesting experience to be in the army and everyone else was carrying rifles.
One part of his argument is hard to understand. He thinks the I.P.C.C. assessments have been a huge success, so he is calling for an end to them. The links between human activity and global warming have been proved.
He said that the science that documents the decline of human well-being and planetary health is not contributing to solutions.
Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard historian of science, agreed that the panel sent a mixed message.
She said, "Why do we need another report?"
Pierre Friedlingstein, a professor at the University ofExeter who worked on previous I.P.C.C. reports, said past assessments ended with many discussions about how the next one could be better. The scientists can't make major changes to the way the panel works.
At the end of the day, you end up with a system that looks very similar to what we had before.
Susan Solomon, an atmospheric chemist who worked on past I.P.C.C. reports, said the science might be settled on climate change and global average temperatures.
She said that nobody lives in the global average.
Dr. Solomon's research helped lead to an agreement to restore the ozone layer. She said that the effort succeeded because people grasped how the issue affected them personally. As scientists improve their understanding of climate change, elected leaders will feel more pressure to act.
There is always more to learn about how to deal with climate change impacts and future risks, according to an I.P.C.C spokesman.
High-level action on carbon emissions isn't the only point. Their responsibility is much more than that.
In India, local governments are desperately looking for data and information. She said that they are looking for scientists to tell them what action they can take.
According to an I.P.C.C. author, few leaders in West Africa considered climate change a burning issue compared to education or security. Ordinary people want to know about the changes in water supplies, crop yields and fishing patterns.
Dr. Totin said that he made more impact at the local level than at the global level.
When Debora Ley is discouraged by the climate reports, she thinks of the people in the villages where she has helped set up small renewable-energy systems.
She said that the first time they turn on a bulb was exciting.
Sometimes ice cream is the best friend.
They put out their call for a strike, so they have to think about their remaining years. They want their fellow scientists to do that too.
Dr. White said he didn't want to document decline.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
