Science does “staying in its lane” pretty well. But the lines are getting blurrier and it’s about time too for ecologist Professor Sally Archibald, from Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences (APES) at the University of the Witwatersrand. 

Archibald presented a talk on “The ethical challenges of balancing climate advocacy and science” at Wits University’s Pro VC Seminar this spring. The topic is contentious but Archibald, speaking out publicly for the first time, rooted her position of why she needs to be both scientist and activist and why there should be room for both. 

Her stance mirrors the global movement that has seen more scientists come to a reckoning that as the people who know the science best, they should also be at the forefront of climate activism. 

Science activism divides the room though. It pits scientific objectivity against personal moral values. Scientist-activists have faced a backlash, had their professional affiliations revoked and some have been fired. 

But history has shown the value and impact when scientists choose activism. In this country it helped purge Aids denialism and forced the government to finally make treatment publicly available. More recently it’s been to fight for life-saving Covid-19 vaccine programmes. Activist scientists have over the decades used science to campaign against dangers like leaded gas, the impacts of the synthetic insecticide DDT and the atomic bomb. 

“I can’t play along anymore,” Archibald said of the consequences of ignoring that scientists’ public neutrality and public disengagement has had the effect of dulling the alarm bell for climate action. It’s also led to bits of science and research being cherry-picked or cobbled together then amplified as solutions.

Climate colonialism

As an ecologist Archibald singled out nature-based solutions (NbS) for carbon offset as particularly problematic. The International Union for Conservation of Nature describes NbS as “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural and modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously benefiting people and nature”.

Examples of NbS from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) include greening cities through green roofs and constructing wetlands to absorb stormwater run-off to reduce flood risks. Other examples are the restoration of coral reefs and efforts to keep forests standing. The WWF though cautions that NbS are only part of the solution. For example non-native trees planted as carbon offset have detrimental consequences for biodiversity. “The potential climate benefits don’t outweigh the cost. It’s important to make science-driven decisions,” the organisation states.

Nature-based solutions are most dangerous because they are a divergence and distraction from facing up to the need to end fossil fuel dependence and to reduce emissions.

“The problem is that true ‘nature-based solutions’ are very rare and depend on the perspectives and values of the people involved. With the current time and financial pressures people are often pushed into supporting interventions where the costs are not fully accounted for. And the idea of using African ecosystems to store carbon and telling African people how to use their land resources amounts to climate colonialism,” Archibald told Maverick Citizen.

Read more in Daily Maverick: Commodification of carbon provides fertile ground for agrarian injustice, conference is told

Archibald said the absence of critical interrogation means limits, pitfalls and the inevitable trade-offs are downplayed or ignored. Issues of social equity and indigenous communities’ rights aren’t adequately factored in, neither are financing, scale, accurate data collection, and transparency and monitoring of these deals and projects are not dealt with. 

Ultimately nature-based solutions are most dangerous, she said, because they are a divergence and distraction from facing up to the need to end fossil fuel dependence and to reduce emissions. It means business models need to change and the idea of perpetual growth as a model of success needs resetting. 

“To me as an ecologist, a healthy ecosystem is one where all the interacting components interact, and there’s circulating resources. But a system that constantly grows is either recovering from a disturbance or is perturbed,” she said.

In her talk, Archibald said she “exited” many public debates when the outcome of the Paris Accord in 2015 adopted a market-based approach of carbon credits and carbon capture in ecosystems. 

You can live by your principles or you can try to speak about your principles and change how other people are acting; these are two different things.

Carbon markets, according to the United Nations Development Programme, are trading systems for carbon credits to be sold and bought. “Companies or individuals can use carbon markets to compensate for their greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing carbon credits from entities that remove or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One tradable carbon credit equals one tonne of carbon dioxide.”

Critics though say carbon trading is not sufficient for environmental impact. The compensation and investment model also lacks transparency and governance. 

Vocalising principles

Archibald called in window dressing. And at her crossroads, she said: “The approach of ‘exit’ is no longer tenable for me so I’m trying to use my voice to influence the process. You can live by your principles or you can try to speak about your principles and change how other people are acting; these are two different things. Up until now I have been trying to live by my principles, but it’s not enough.”

Read more in Daily Maverick: Hundreds of millions pledged for african carbon credits at inaugural climate summit

Archibald also addressed the thorny issue of funding models and corporate partnerships. “Scientists use science to push a certain agenda, so we need to be honest and transparent about what values we are pushing; and society must be able to challenge us,” she said. 

She added: “Some people would argue that you shouldn’t just cut your ties with organisations and companies that make money out of fossil fuels, because if you work with them then you can enable them to transition more rapidly. And if you reject them entirely you’re not helping.”

Archibald has previously walked away from working with fossil fuel companies. But she’s shifted on this too, but with conditions. “As a scientist I will work with them but I will also be saying publicly that they need to be held accountable, they need new business models and we need structural change,” she said. 

Since Archibald’s presentation she’s had three main responses, she said. First are those who believe technologies on the horizon will save humankind from climate doom. Then there are those who are disheartened by how she’s dispelled the promise of NbS as an effective carbon capture fix. And third, she said, are colleagues saying to her, “I’ve been feeling this way too and I think we should engage”.

The latter two responses affirm the place for context, data and deeper engagement because the science evidence is shallowly understood. The last response shows the need for solidarity. Even as scientists have supported the recommendations for the global temperature rise to stay 1.5°C below pre-industrial levels, year after year, the targets have been missed. It amounts to a middle finger to science.

Archibald says the current inertia and limbo cannot be separated from political will and vested interests. “Climate change can be stopped. What precipitated this for me was watching how when the Global North thought it was a crisis they could make huge changes to economies and society in order to solve the crisis. And they were quite happy to leave the Global South behind.”

Scientist Rebellion, which launched in September 2021, is a movement of scientists taking their fight out of the labs and onto the streets. They have chosen nonviolent civil disobedience to campaign for climate justice, effective climate change mitigation and degrowth. In May 2023, scientists from 32 countries demonstrated on the streets under the banner “The Science in Clear”. This September they joined protests in Times Square, New York, for “Climate Week” timed with the sitting of the UN General Assembly. 

Read more in Daily Maverick: Justice groups and communities showcase a pathway to burst the bubble of exclusive climate crisis activism

Scientists stepping out of their labs – out of their lanes – is unsettling and uncomfortable, but for Archibald it’s as it should be. She said: “No one wants to argue for revolution because revolutions can be dangerous, scary and bad. But the alternative of keeping silent is also dangerous, scary and bad.” DM