why effective scientific speech must “come out of spite” and be more objective

Every Saturday we decipher climate issues with François Gemenne, professor at HEC, president of the Scientific Council of the Foundation for Nature and Man and member of the IPCC.

In Mexico, a former member of the IPCC, Claudia Sheinbaum, has just been elected president. She notably participated as an author on the fourth and fifth reports. She is not the only one, moreover, to exercise political responsibilities: the Minister of the Environment of Chile participated in the drafting of the 6th IPCC report. And until her appointment, she headed the main climate research laboratory in Chile.

But in France, it’s quite the opposite: researchers complain of not being listened to by politicians…

François Gemenne : This is indeed a refrain that we often hear, and the contrast with these two cases in Latin America is striking: here we have two scientists who are in positions of responsibility, and in France the scientists complain of being ignored. I admit that I don’t share this impression at all: on the contrary, they are very well listened to.

We must not confuse “to be listened to” and “to be heard”. We can deplore the fact that scientific work is not followed up, but we cannot say that it is ignored. The work of the IPCC is cited in almost all political speeches on climate, and researchers even gave training on climate to MPs two years ago.

However, there remains a great frustration: the feeling of not being “heard” – which is perhaps even worse when we are listened to. Thus, more and more researchers testify in the media about their moods, feeling helpless and depressed. Some even revolt and join civil disobedience movements: this is the case of a group like “Scientists in Rebellion”, for example, which is a little brother of “Extinction Rebellion”.

A good scientist will not necessarily be a good decision maker. Overall, in France, scientists are little invested in politics and electoral campaigns. Engagement is tricky, because scientists themselves are not neutral, and it is important that science appears neutral in public debate.

“I think the engagement of researchers is important, but it’s also important that science is not politicized.”

François Gemenne

at franceinfo

This is why I think that researchers must engage above all as citizens, without a white coat or argument from authority.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding. Many of my colleagues, and almost all climate activists, think that their role in the public debate consists above all of warning of the seriousness of the problem, of the urgency to act. So they are going to increase the number of alerts, so that as many people as possible become aware of what is happening. He thinks that once we become aware of what is happening, we will really be afraid of the future, we will decide to act. And I think this is where we are going wrong, for three reasons:

First of all, I think we have to realize that we have taken a step forward. Now, awareness is there: 85% of French people say they are worried or very worried about the consequences of climate change. And then climate change itself is now responsible for reminding us of the seriousness of the problem; it no longer needs intermediaries.

Next, it would be naive to think that it is enough to be aware of a problem in order to act. Often it is not a lack of knowledge that prevents us from acting, it is a lack of political will, or economic interest.

And finally it places a very heavy weight on people’s shoulders, which can make people feel guilty or generate anxiety, even anguish.

It seems to me that we would progress collectively if the words of scientists came out of the spite in which they sometimes get stuck – which risks leading to renunciations, and explored two directions more:

– The first is that of explanation. I am always struck by how many aspects there are that remain unknown, or poorly understood by the public. And to act we need to understand well.

“The alert is often a little superficial, and does not allow us to understand the deep roots of the climate system.”

François Gemenne

at franceinfo

– The second is that of solutions. I think people, like businesses, need to know how to act, what is effective.

But the problem, if you point out solutions, if you welcome progress and progress, is that you quickly come across as a naive person who minimizes the seriousness of the problem. You come across as a “reassuranceist who only believes in technology” etc. As your speech indicates, you quickly pass for a traitor to the cause, a fanatic of the Coué method. This is a criticism that is often addressed to me, for example, there are even people whoThey asked me if I had already read the IPCC reports…