Study finds techno-optimistic scientists report fewer climate actions

Scientists who believe technology will largely solve the problems caused by climate change are 23% less likely to engage in civic climate action and 18% less likely to make high-impact lifestyle changes than scientists who disagree, according to a study by the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). The study was published on 7 October in Environmental Research Letters. It surveyed more than 9,000 scientists across 115 countries.

In the survey, 27% of scientists agreed with the statement that "technology will largely solve the problems caused by climate change," while 44% disagreed and 29% neither agreed nor disagreed, according to Phys.org. The study reported that scientists who agreed signed fewer petitions (41% versus 52%), engaged in less protest (17% versus 28%) and engaged in less advocacy (25% versus 33%).

The study reported similar differences in lifestyle changes. Techno-optimistic scientists were less likely to report reducing their flying (43% versus 57%), reducing their car use (62% versus 74%) or following a mostly vegan or vegetarian diet (31% versus 45%). Differences in technology-oriented actions, such as switching to an electric vehicle (18% versus 21%) or using renewable energy at home (46% versus 47%), were negligible.

The study reported that techno-optimism was most prevalent among scientists with right-leaning political views. On a scale from 1 (most left-leaning) to 7 (most right-leaning), 16% of scientists who identified with 1 or 2 were techno-optimists, compared with 48% of those who identified with 6 or 7. By field, the share of techno-optimists was highest in applied sciences (31%) and natural sciences (29%), and lowest in the social and behavioral sciences (23%) and humanities (23%).

The authors stated that the belief technology will largely solve climate change "can lead to an overreliance on technological solutions at the expense of far-reaching socioeconomic transformations needed to address climate change." They stated that current scenarios for cutting emissions rely heavily on the future rollout of speculative negative emissions technologies. They said this reliance hampers the development of alternative ways to cut emissions and deflects attention from the need for immediate emission reductions.

Lead author Dr. Fabian Dablander commented on the findings. He is from the Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science and the Global School of Sustainability at LSE. He said technological solutions "are often politically attractive because they promise to address climate change without requiring changes to how people live and consume."