Scientists who trust technology to solve climate change report less climate action

Scientists who believe technology will largely solve climate change reported taking fewer civic and lifestyle actions on the issue, according to an international study reported on 7 October 2026. The survey covered 9,199 scientists in 115 countries and raises a question for researchers whose work helps shape public understanding of climate solutions: how do their expectations about technology relate to what they do themselves?

The researchers call that belief ‘techno-optimism’. In the survey, it meant agreeing that technology will largely solve problems caused by climate change. The Guardian reported that 27% of respondents agreed with the statement, 44% disagreed and 29% neither agreed nor disagreed. Those answers describe scientists’ stated expectations; they do not show which technologies respondents had in mind.

What the survey found about climate action

Scientists who expressed greater faith in technology reported less participation in civic action, including petitions, protests and advocacy, according to the Guardian’s account of the study. They were also less likely to report high-impact lifestyle changes such as flying less, reducing car use or following a mostly vegan or vegetarian diet. The finding concerns reported behaviour among survey respondents, rather than a measured change in greenhouse gas emissions.

The study abstract likewise reports lower civic climate action and high-impact lifestyle changes among techno-optimistic scientists. Its headline percentage reductions differ from those in the Guardian’s report, so the direction of the association is clearer from the available material than a single directly comparable estimate. The final paper’s statistical comparisons need checking before those figures are treated as interchangeable.

Why the distinction between belief and behaviour matters

Lead author Fabian Dablander told the Guardian that technological solutions can be attractive because they promise to address climate change without changing how people live and consume. He argued that technology cannot substitute for broader social changes and large-scale shifts in consumption. That is the author’s interpretation of the findings, rather than proof that confidence in technology makes an individual less likely to act.

Kevin Anderson of the University of Manchester’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, who was not involved in the study, told the Guardian that faith in future technological solutions can postpone difficult choices in the present. His comments offer an outside critique of that outlook, not independent confirmation of the survey’s statistical results.

How the new finding fits earlier research

Earlier research on scientists’ climate engagement provides context for the new analysis. A 2024 study in npj Climate Action surveyed 9,220 researchers across 115 countries and found that climate researchers reported more advocacy and activism than researchers outside climate fields. The difference in reported high-impact lifestyle changes was smaller. That study compared research groups, while the new finding examines beliefs about technology.

A separate 2024 article in Nature Climate Change examined scientists’ engagement across disciplines and career stages. Its abstract reported that many scientists made individual lifestyle changes, while fewer participated in advocacy or activism. The authors proposed that researchers can face intellectual and practical barriers both to deciding to engage and to acting on that decision. Those earlier results help explain why different forms of climate action should be considered separately.

The 2024 npj Climate Action study also warned that researchers already engaged with climate issues may have been more likely to answer its survey. That is a caveat about the earlier research, not a verified assessment of the new paper’s sampling. Both the new study abstract and the Guardian report describe associations based on surveyed beliefs and reported actions. Neither establishes that technological optimism caused the differences in behaviour.