myIn 2023, I left a promising position as a professor of oceanography at the University of Rhode Island when I realized that academic science was not only ineffective in the face of climate change, but could also contribute to delaying climate action.
Working as an oceanographer was exciting: weeks at sea on large research vessels, using tools and robots to examine the far reaches of our planet. All of these expeditions were undertaken in hopes of contributing to the vast field of ocean sciences that goes hand-in-hand with understanding climate. Between producing most of our atmospheric oxygen, sequestering most of our atmospheric carbon dioxide, and regulating heat transport across the planet, our oceans are the main drivers of Earth’s climate.
Like most of my oceanographer colleagues, I was motivated to become a professor to help alleviate the climate crisis. However idealistic most academic scientists are, they cannot escape their increasingly private and resource-oriented institutions. University sciences are divided, on the one hand, by the desire to act against global warming and, on the other, by the need to obtain funds for research. Researchers have developed the science of climate change to the detriment of the search for solutions.
Technological solutionism
To receive funds, they sell ideas to financiers: governments, industrial partners or philanthropic organizations. Scientists must make these ideas acceptable to society. A great way to do this is to include science in the evolution of our climate.
But this becomes problematic quite quickly. First, university research stagnates due to its dependence on public funding, the direction of which is at the mercy of government agencies that often harbor climate skeptics. Second, flashy, technologically rich ideas that promise quick solutions are often funded at the expense of projects that have local implications or are based on longer-term issues.
The term “technosolutionism” has been used to describe this type of research, where it focuses on future innovations that could reduce emissions, rather than addressing the climate emergency. Technological solutionism is often favored by startups or venture capitalists. This dangerous move recognizes the reality of global warming but delays decision-making and actually blocks action on climate.
You have 57.06% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
