How did you come to write a commentary on climate science and emotions?
A survey of almost 400 scientists who contributed to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by the British daily newspaper “The Guardian” showed that most of them are very concerned about the consequences of climate change. Some of us were questioned further. We expressed our fears about the future of our children, the ecosystems and the people living in the most vulnerable areas. We received a lot of backlash from other scientists. Among them were IPCC co-authors who said we were too pessimistic and depressing and that it was not helpful to express feelings. We would fuel apathy if we expressed our concern. This reinforced our impression that the importance of emotions is overlooked in science. We therefore decided to go public with it. For most people on this planet, climate change threatens to become existential - and retreating into depression and apathy is not an option.
How can researchers' emotions influence research in concrete terms?
In their research, psychologists, behavioral economists and political scientists investigate why people make different decisions. This includes the question of what motivates people to take action on climate change (or not) or to worry about it (or not). But this research is mainly concerned with public opinion. Most people don't know much about the climate system or the consequences of global warming. If you asked climate scientists, you'd probably get a lot more worried answers. It's really difficult and depressing to keep reading and researching about how people and ecosystems are suffering from climate change. However, in my opinion, deep concern can provide the necessary energy to investigate all possible causes and solutions to a problem. Since climate change is a “wicked problem” for which there is no clear solution, we really need this engagement.
Is the paradigm of the objectivity of science still tenable against this background?
Many decisions are made in the research process - from the research question to the choice of methods and data to the type of analysis. All of this is influenced by the scientists' world view. The idea that science is somehow free of values is therefore a myth. Research is even influenced by what kind of topics funders deem worthy of funding. Which in many countries depends on which political party is in power. In the social sciences, we learn to be reflexive in our research. This means that we need to recognize how our worldviews and past experiences can lead us to interpret results in a way that confirms our beliefs - while hiding data that may tell a different story.
One could now get the impression that the emotions of the researchers mean that the results of climate research are arbitrary. Is that the case?
Contrary to the claims of climate skeptics, scientists have no interest in finding out that the climate is changing faster or in a different way than previous studies have shown. The prospect of more research funding or an additional publication is not a conceivable “reward” for such a result. After all, as humans living on this planet, researchers are also affected by the effects of climate change. The issue is so difficult that the only way to continue dealing with it is to find a solution. Climate change can trigger panic, anger and sadness in researchers. Such emotions can have a negative impact on science if the research topic is abandoned as a result.
You and your co-authors write about a gap between doom and gloom and hope in the climate research community. How does this relate to you?
We often associate the extremely pessimistic perspective with scientists who use negative language when talking about the future. Images of coral reefs dying, livestock dying of thirst and starvation and infrastructure damage from flooding are typical. Those who express optimism about society's willingness to move away from fossil fuels or to adapt to the extreme effects of climate change are hopeful. But as we write in our comment, most people probably vacillate between these different extreme feelings. If you're very worried about the future, you become part of the problem, not the solution, if you stop researching. And anyone advocating for a technology-based low-carbon energy transition will be aware that it will only succeed if all stakeholders, with their different priorities, are on board. However, I think that more honesty in all groups would be very important so that the discussion does not turn into a conflict between people who have already recognized climate change as a problem.
You argue that science also needs emotions and that researchers should talk openly about them. What would that achieve?
Ideally, such conversations would lead to more humility in the climate change research community. We should recognize that our different disciplinary perspectives only work together to find a way to avoid the climate crisis. Together, ideas can become solutions. Contrary to popular belief, physics is by no means the best source of knowledge on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the effects of climate change. This knowledge comes from other disciplines, including the social sciences. They know, for example, how people behave, how policies are made, how energy and industrial sectors can be converted to low-carbon processes. In addition, such forums would perhaps at least be a place where we can support each other emotionally to move on and look for answers.
Reports from “The Guardian”:
About the person
Lisa Schipper has been a professor in the Geographical Development Research group since the beginning of 2023. Before moving to the University of Bonn, Lisa Schipper was an Environmental Social Science Research Fellow at the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford. Her research focuses on the interface between climate change and development research. In particular, she examines the question of whether equitable development is possible in a changing climate. Among other things, she researches the causes of the vulnerability of people in the Global South. The focus of her research is on structural issues relating to power, justice and equality. Her regional focus is on Central and South America, East Africa and South and Southeast Asia. After completing her studies and doctorate in Environmental Science (B.Sc.), Environment and Development (M.Sc.) and Development Studies (PhD) at Brown University and the University of East Anglia, she worked at the University of Vienna, the Stockholm Environment Institute, Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok and the University of Social Sciences and Humanities in Ho Chi Minh City. Among her numerous publications, her work on the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report stands out in particular. Prof. Dr. Schipper is also co-editor of the journal Climate and Development and sits on the editorial board of the journals World Development Perspectives and Global Transitions - Health. She is a member of various international commissions and working groups and an advisor to various development policy organizations, such as the United Nations, Care International and the Asian Development Bank.