Thread by @ThomasFranssen

Out in @NatureGeosci ‘A clean energy future isn’t set in stone’. Co-authored with @MandydeWilde. We hope to foster conversations between social and geoscientists about the ways in which sociotechnical visions for a sustainable future shape research: rdcu.be/cv9Ta

We argue that scientific research always draws on sociotechnical visions of the future which shape research problems and questions. The clean-energy future is such a vision, originating in ecological modernization, that aspires to establish an economy that grows in a clean way

However, such a clean-energy future relies heavily on high-tech innovations that use a lot of metals, more than we currently extract from the Earth. This vision of the future sparks particular research questions (for instance, how to find and extract more metals?)

We question the extent to which the clean-energy future is viable within the time limits we are confronted with (drawing on work by @jasonhickel and @g_kallis) and question whether this future is sustainable for all in relation to the polluting effects of resource extraction.

We give the example of #degrowth as an alternative sociotechnical vision that sparks very different research problems and research questions because it envisions a very different future. The point being that research problems are always entangled with sociotechnical visions.

Hence, we need to critically reflect on how sociotechnical visions shape research. Not to develop a value-free science but rather to explore how different visions clash, and how they spark different questions. Only then can we develop new visions of multiple sustainable futures.

It might be of interest to @jasonhickel, @g_kallis, @JKSteinberger and maybe to @ClimateHuman, @GeorgeMonbiot and @EricHolthaus. And @IsmaelRafols, @SFuntowicz, @EstherTurnhout, @rdjs_is, @SarahdeRijcke, @mbarbier64, @JAnneBeaulieu, @OS4Future, @Klimaatzuster