SF2A Environmental Transition Commission: Summary of the 2025 workshop

During its annual conference in 2025, the French Society of Astronomy & Astrophysics (SF2A) hosted, for the fifth time, a special session dedicated to discussing the environmental transition within the French A&A research community. During the 2025 workshop, the goal was to review four contemporary topics within the context of environmental transition actions and discussions: (1) institutional actions, (2) the early-career researchers singularity, (3) research infrastructures and tools, and (4) the geopolitical conditions under which A&A research remains possible. The workshop concluded with a round-table discussion that brought together the various speakers so that every participant could express their ideas.

💡 Research Summary

The 2025 SF2A Environmental Transition Commission workshop brought together the French astronomy and astrophysics community to examine four inter‑related themes: institutional actions, the particular challenges faced by early‑career researchers (ECRs), the carbon footprint of research infrastructures and digital tools, and the geopolitical conditions that affect the viability of A&A research.
The opening talk, delivered by A. Mouinié, highlighted the role of the Observatory of the Universe (OSU) model, exemplified by the Observatory Midi‑Pyrénées (OMP). By aggregating several institutes under a single administrative umbrella, the OSU can coordinate greenhouse‑gas (GHG) reduction strategies, leverage collective bargaining power with funding agencies, and share resources such as training, instrumentation, data processing, and national observation services. The French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) has introduced a Sustainable Development and Social Responsibility scheme that obliges each institute to cut GHG emissions by 6 % per year, using the GES‑1point5 tool for quantitative monitoring.
The second session, presented by J. Berat, focused on the mental‑health crisis among ECRs, who are simultaneously pressured by academic expectations and the climate‑ecology emergency. Survey data (e.g., UC Berkeley 2014 report) reveal high rates of depression and anxiety among graduate students. Two main barriers to sustainable engagement were identified: practical (lack of skills, fear of losing credibility, isolation, time constraints) and intellectual (unclear scientist role, cognitive dissonance about contributing to the problem). Proposed remedies include establishing peer‑support groups, interdisciplinary collaboration spaces, mentorship programmes, and embedding sustainability metrics into hiring and promotion criteria. A petition signed by more than 1,500 researchers called for a “socio‑ecological metamorphosis of research,” signalling growing collective demand for systemic change.
The third theme examined the carbon impact of digital technologies and physical facilities. An analysis of the Paris Observatory’s digital carbon footprint showed that manufacturing and data‑center operations account for roughly 7 % of the institution’s total emissions (≈0.36 tCO₂‑eq per person). Anticipating future data‑storage needs for projects such as the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) is essential, as is improving energy efficiency of existing hardware. Life‑cycle assessments (LCA) of two case studies—a ground‑based Mid‑Size Cherenkov Telescope Array at La Palma and the space‑based X‑IFU instrument for the Athena mission—identified potential emission reductions of about 30 % through material selection, modular design, and recycling strategies. The authors argue that meeting the Paris Agreement target for astronomy will require a 3 % annual reduction in the number of facilities and a doubling of decarbonisation efforts for existing infrastructure, while noting that the environmental cost of dismantling telescopes remains unquantified.
The fourth session addressed geopolitical threats to scientific freedom. The United States under the Trump administration imposed ideological censorship, data suppression, and severe budget cuts, prompting the emergence of the “Stand Up for Science” movement and the creation of safe‑haven programmes such as “Safe Place for Science” and “Choose France for Science.” Similar pressures exist in Brazil, Argentina, and Russia‑occupied Ukraine, where researchers face visa revocations, funding cuts, or forced displacement. In France, the 2024 governmental decree slashed research funding by €900 million, with an additional €1.1 billion cut in 2025, and the controversial “Loi de programmation de la recherche” (LPR) has increased job insecurity, favoured competitive funding over stable support, and elevated bureaucratic performance metrics at the expense of academic freedom. These trends have led to a four‑fold decline in union membership over six decades and a shift away from non‑profit sector engagement.
The concluding round‑table, originally intended to discuss air versus rail travel for business trips, quickly broadened to a reflection on the community’s overall capacity for change. Participants agreed that while awareness of environmental issues is relatively high, concrete progress—especially for early‑career researchers—remains limited. They stressed that environmental transition is inherently political; without political action, sustainability initiatives risk becoming “gardening” rather than systemic reform. The workshop therefore called for stronger engagement in policy advocacy, protection of academic freedom, and the establishment of robust, financially independent research structures that can sustain both scientific excellence and ecological responsibility.