Monday, January 31, 2022

IAPG endorsed the Jena Declaration

The Executive Council of the IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics decided to endorse the Jena Declaration (TJD).

The Jena Declaration (TJD) establishes guidelines and practices to accelerate progress to attain the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It calls for enabling fundamental change in the everyday actions of hundreds of millions of people all over the world.  Specifically, the declaration aims to stimulate more culturally-sensitive policies and programs that enhance, promote and facilitate grass roots movements that lie at the heart of such mobilization. By respecting cultural and regional diversities, the aim is to exceed the expectations of the UN SDGs before 2030, and to set the table for even greater success with each successive decade.

The Jena Declaration continues work begun at the “Humanities and Social Sciences for Sustainability” conference, held in Jena, Germany in October 2020. The conference was organized in partnership with the Canadian and German Commissions for UNESCO; The International Council for Philosophy and the Human Sciences; The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; The World Academy of Art & Science; The Club of Rome; The Academia Europaea; and The International Geographical Union. The project is coordinated by the UNESCO-Chair on Global Understanding for Sustainability, held by Professor Benno Werlen at the University of Jena, Germany.

Since its adoption in March 2021, the Declaration has been endorsed by a considerable number of international organizations and initiatives in the fields of science, arts, and economics, all striving to promote sustainable development through a culturally-sensitive bottom-up approach. Among the co-signatories are renowned researchers, artists, activists and concerned citizens in civic, academic, cultural, and political spheres. Further support of concerned individuals and institutions world-wide is essential. For this movement to be successful, it is crucial that voices that have been under-represented in the development of top-down approaches to solving sustainability issues be fully engaged and heard. To that end, we appeal to young people from around the world and especially from the Global South to join us and to participate fully in the development of programs and policies that apply The Jena Declaration principles. We encourage people everywhere to support The Jena Declaration and to add their voice by adding their signature.

The Jena Declaration is available in English, Farsi, French, German, Hindi, Indonesian, Italian, Portuguese. 



Other resources on the IAPG website:

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics:

Sunday, January 30, 2022

A Geo-philosophical Topic – Agency at the Human-Earth Nexus

by Martin Bohle

International Association for Promoting Geoethics (IAPG)
Ronin Research Scholar @edgeryders; Member of EGU, AGU

Martin Bohle

Research into the societal contexts of geosciences led to the construction of various geo-philosophical frameworks, for example, geoethics as formulated at the 35th IGC in 2016 in Cape Town (Di Capua et al., 2017). These frameworks combine insights into societal and geoscientific features to build a joint knowledge system for the realms of both planet Earth and the world of humans. Geo-philosophical frameworks shall guide professionals and citizens when interacting with World and Planet Earth, that is, operating at the Human-Earth Nexus. Different geo-philosophical frameworks are distinct by the epistemic, political, and moral philosophies that describe the respective insights combined as a specific framework. Identifying these philosophical building blocks consolidates geoethics and relates it to broader knowledge realms than geosciences.

Materials and Methods

The Human-Earth Nexus is the bundle of planet Earth, a planetary technosphere, and a hegemonic culture (Haff, 2014) (Rosol et al., 2017) (Otto et al., 2020).  Various modern geo-philosophical frameworks are designed to inspect this nexus (see references in Bohle and Marone (2021)). In terms of knowledge systems, they are borderline problems at the intersection of different knowledge domains (Renn, 2020).  
The features of a geo-philosophical framework depend on their philosophical foundation, which is a compound of scientific epistemology and selected insights into geoscientific matters, societal features and normative settings. The choice of a specific philosophical foundation, explicitly or tacitly, determines the specific features of a given geo-philosophical framework. Hence, variants of the philosophical foundation lead to variants of the given framework. 
The following paragraphs refer to the school of geo-philosophical frameworks named ‘geoethics’.  Its development is briefly recalled, and a research question is outlined to examine one of its features.

‘Cape Town Geoethics’

Emerging within geology (Lambert, 2012), geoethics was an intra-disciplinary endeavour striving for responsible geosciences (Peppoloni et al., 2019). Early studies in geoethics were summarised as the Cape Town Statement on Geoethics (Di Capua et al., 2017). Since 2016 various works have dwelled on this basis, which, for the following, is called ‘Cape Town Geoethics’.
Among the notions that refer to modern geo-philosophical frameworks, the term geoethics stands out, despite a somewhat dispersed use in the scientific literature (Bohle and Marone, 2021). Peppoloni et al. (2019) described 'Cape Town Geoethics' as an aspirational virtue-ethics for the individual human agent acting at the Human-Earth Nexus, and Potthast (2021) defines geoethics as an epistemic-moral hybrid. For example, 'Cape Town Geoethics' is founded on Kantian moral philosophies (Marone and Bohle, 2020).  
Geoethics is neighbouring various fields, for example, environmental ethics, engineering ethics and sustainability ethics. Also, Frodeman (2003) proposed a geo-philosophical framework for the earth sciences and related concepts in other disciplines are known (Forbes and Lindquist, 2000). Although the vastness of fields related to geoethics and the number of open issues (Bohle and Di Capua, 2019) may be startling, likely significant contributions can be found when exploring them, as illustrated by the following example:

As designed from the onset (Peppoloni and Di Capua, 2012), geoethics should enable ethically sound operational practices of geoscientists depending on environmental, social and cultural settings. Hence, geoethical practices aim at comparative Justice and pluralism of sound choices. This idea of Justice is well-established (Sen, 2010) and hence supports Cape Town Geoethics’.  
However, those who pursue developing geoethics (the author included) have not been adequately and early aware of this Indian economist, philosopher and awardee of the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences (1998).

The example above illustrates that exploring the ‘intellectual neighbourhoods of geoethics’ should be beneficial for its robustness because it anchors geoethics on a broader knowledge domain. Happily, the geoethics session at the EGU conference in 2022 [*] calls for such an exploration. The intellectual quest can go further.
Acknowledging the compound design of any geo-philosophical framework, including geoethics, leads to the understanding that variants of the framework are possible on the same epistemic foundation in Earth Science Literacy. Hence, methodically, alternatives of the Cape Town Geoethics can be constructed by choosing a specific philosophy for insights into societal features and normative settings reflecting that geo-philosophical frameworks are epistemic-moral hybrids. Recently, some variants of 'Cape Town Geoethics' have been explored by using Kohlberg’s (1981), Jonas’ (1984), and Bunge’s (1989) political philosophies to account for specific societal features (Marone and Bohle, 2020). 
Drawing on the above, I suggest exploring possible variants of the 'Cape Town Geoethics' through analysing the compound philosophical descriptions of insights into societal features and normative settings underpinning it. Such research will strengthen geoethics.

A specific research question

Several unique features characterise 'Cape Town Geoethics', including its predecessors and variants, could benefit from examining how they depend on the philosophical foundation.
First, the concept of autonomy of the human agent encapsulates the moral core of 'Cape Town Geoethics'. The autonomy of the human agent is the pivotal tenet of any variant of 'Cape Town Geoethics'. This feature is made most explicit for the variant envisioning ecological humanism (Peppoloni and Di Capua, 2020; p.17).  However, human autonomy is limited in any societal reality, as illustrated by Ayeh and Bleicher, when considering, for example, ‘geoethics and responsible mining’.  Generalising such understanding, human autonomy is contextual and not categorical (e.g. Kantian; see (Marone and Bohle, 2020)). For example, differentials of power, voice, sense-making skills, group pressure or access to resources (knowledge included) limit human autonomy. Thus, free will or free agency would be bounded, if not precluded. Therefore, this pivotal tenet of the geo-philosophical frameworks  ‘geoethics’ needs deeper examination.
Second diverging practices emerge when responsible and ethically sound choices depend on environmental, social and cultural settings, which are given. Such ‘operational pluralism’ (permitting ‘functional plasticity’) is a central design feature of geoethics, acknowledging, for example, in the Cape Town Statement on Geoethics, that choices “taken in a specific social and cultural setting, that respect the ethical norms of this setting, may appear unethical elsewhere” (Peppoloni et al., 2019; p.30). This feature is essential to handle the diversity of circumstances at the Human-Earth Nexus, and therefore, it should be kept while also acknowledging the partial autonomy of human agents.
Third, comparative Justice and operational pluralism are essential in any geo-philosophical framework for agents acting at the Human-Earth Nexus. However, it exposes the human agent to high decision-loads and requires adjusting messages to audiences and circumstances. Under these complex conditions (see Sen (2010) for detailed discussions), aspirational norms give only limited guidance because these norms are categorical and independent of the agent, circumstance and audience. For example, the statements of the Geoethical Promise (Matteucci et al., 2014; p.191), such as “I will never misuse my geoscience knowledge, not even under constraint”, or its variants in the Cape Town Statement on Geoethics, are praiseworthy. However, the question arises, how they can be adjusted to serve the human agent in challenging circumstances of partial autonomy?
None of the variants of geoethics ('Cape Town Geoethics', its predecessors and variants) examined that human agents have limited autonomy/agency. This issue, essential when operating at the Human-Earth Nexus, should be examined, and it should be tackled within the general operational structure of 'Cape Town Geoethics' (e.g. comparative Justice, operational pluralism). Methodologically it can be undertaken by enlarging the foundations of 'Cape Town Geoethics' with specific political and moral philosophies, which apply a realist-materialist scientific epistemology (Bunge, 2006) to understand the societal fabric, for example, describing differentials of power, voice, sense-making skills, group pressure or access to resources.




Bohle, M., and Di Capua, G. (2019). ‘Setting the Scene’, in Exploring Geoethics, ed. M. Bohle (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 1–24. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-12010-8_1.

Bohle, M., and Marone, E. (2021). Geoethics, a Branding for Sustainable Practices. Sustainability 13, 895. doi:10.3390/su13020895.

Bunge, M. A. (1989). Treaties on Basic Philosophy -Ethics: The Good and The Right. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Bunge, M. A. (2006). Chasing Reality. Toronto St. Toronto: University of Toronto Press doi:10.3138/9781442672857.

Di Capua, G., Peppoloni, S., and Bobrowsky, P. (2017). The Cape Town Statement on Geoethics. Ann. Geophys. 60, 1–6. doi:10.4401/ag-7553.

Forbes, W., and Lindquist, C. (2000). Philosophical, Professional, and Environmental Ethics An Overview for Foresters. J. For. 98, 4–10.

Frodeman, R. (2003). Geo-Logic: Breaking Ground Between Philosophy and the Earth Sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Haff, P. K. (2014). Humans and technology in the Anthropocene: Six rules. Anthr. Rev. 1, 126–136. doi:10.1177/2053019614530575.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice. San Francisco: Harber & Row.

Lambert, I. B. (2012). Geoethics: a perspective from Australia. Ann. Geophys. 55. doi:10.4401/ag-5556.

Marone, E., and Bohle, M. (2020). Geoethics for Nudging Human Practices in Times of Pandemics. Sustainability 12, 7271. doi:10.3390/su12187271.

Matteucci, R., Gosso, G., Peppoloni, S., Piacente, S., Wasowski, J. (2014). The “Geoethical Promise”: A Proposal. Episodes, 37(3), 190-191. doi:10.18814/epiiugs/2014/v37i3/004.

Otto, I. M., Wiedermann, M., Cremades, R., Donges, J. F., Auer, C., and Lucht, W. (2020). Human agency in the Anthropocene. Ecol. Econ. 167, 106463. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106463.

Peppoloni, S., Bilham, N., and Di Capua, G. (2019). Contemporary Geoethics Within the Geosciences. In Exploring Geoethics (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 25–70. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-12010-8_2.

Peppoloni, S., and Di Capua, G. (2012). Geoethics and geological culture: Awareness, responsibility and challenges. Ann. Geophys. 55, 335–341. doi:10.4401/ag-6099.

Peppoloni, S., and Di Capua, G. (2020). Geoethics as global ethics to face grand challenges for humanity. Geol. Soc. London, Spec. Publ., SP508-2020–146. doi:10.1144/SP508-2020-146.

Potthast, T. (2021). ‘Geosciences and Geoethics in Transition: Research Perspectives from Ethics and Philosophy of Science—A Commentary’, in Geo-societal Narratives (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 213–216. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-79028-8_16.

Renn, J. (2020). The Evolution of Knowledge - Rethinking Science for the Anthropocene. Oxford, UK: Princeton University Press.

Rosol, C., Nelson, S., and Renn, J. (2017). Introduction: In the machine room of the Anthropocene. Anthr. Rev. 4, 2–8. doi:10.1177/2053019617701165.

Sen, A. (2010). The idea of Justice. London, UK: Penguin Books.


Other articles published in the IAPG Blog:

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics

Thursday, January 27, 2022

Geosciences, Geoethics, and UN SDGs at the SGI-SIMP Congress 2022

Torino (Italy), 19-21 September 2022

The proposal of the session P7 "Geosciences and geoethics: achieving UN Agenda 2030" was accepted and included in the preliminary session list of the 91th Congress of the Italian Geological Society (SGI) that will be held jointly with the 95th Congress of the Italian Society of Mineralogy and Petrology (SIMP).

We will keep you informed about the opening of the call for abstracts!

Session title:
Geosciences and geoethics: achieving UN Agenda 2030

Francesca Lozar (Università di Torino), Elena Egidio (Università di Torino), Andrea Gerbaudo (Università di Torino), Marco Tonon (Università di Torino), Silvia Peppoloni (INGV).

Session description:
The United Nations 2030 Agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent the global strategy for building a better world. Yet, the Earth system knowledge and services required to support the SDGs have been largely ignored. This omission is compounded by the lack of geoscience in the SDG debate, even if geoscientists play a crucial role to implement the SDGs and orient society towards a more sustainable future (georisk mitigation, energy transition, prudent georesource management, adaptation to climate change, pollution reduction, enhancement of geoeducation and geoscience communication…). Moreover, the SDGs cannot be achieved without the Earth Science community acknowledging that geoethics is a key for contextualising practices capable to face the challenges of the global anthropogenic changes, including reducing social inequalities and promoting inclusivity. Conveners invite colleagues to submit abstracts focused on ethical and social issues related to geoscience research and practice, on how geosciences can contribute to the 17 SDGs, on best professional practices and strategies for serving society that should be adopted, in order to create conditions for a sustainable and inclusive development of communities. The more significant contributions will be considered for publication in a special issue.

This session is sponsored by the IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics (

Congress website:


Other events in the IAPG calendar:

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics:

Tuesday, January 25, 2022

New book published in the SpringerBriefs in Geoethics

Geoethics in Peru - A Pathway for Latin America

This is the first book on geoethics (8 chapters, 8 authors) printed in 2022 and the second book published in the series SpringerBriefs in Geoethics:

Villacorta Chambi S.P., ed. (2022). Geoethics in Peru - A Pathway for Latin America. SpringerBriefs in Geoethics, Springer International Publishing, pp. XXIII+107. ISBN 978-3030867300.

This book:
  • Illustrates the application of geoethics in Peru and creating awareness about geoscience applications.
  • Broadens the understanding of the application of geosciences to handle problems of its non-application in Peru.
  • Summarizes the experience in leading an association to promote geoethical values in the Latin American region.


IAPG SpringerBriefs in Geoethics series:

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics:

Friday, January 21, 2022

Geomorphological heritage and beyond

by Enrico Cameron*

* National Coalition of Independent Scholars

Picture above: Santa Maria di Leuca (LE) - Spiaggia e Punta Meliso, Italy

Enrico Cameron
Landforms, including anthropogenic ones, influence and are influenced by ecosystems over a wide range of scales. They are structural elements of landscapes (which in turn play a major role in people’s quality of life everywhere) and may be part of world heritage sites or be important only to local communities or single individuals. What is more, various authors have pointed out the importance of sites with former geomorphic features destroyed or hidden by human activities (e.g. Clivaz and Reynard 2017; Pica et al. 2017) and the archaeo-historical value of several anthropogenic landforms (e.g. Fouache and Rasse 2009; Pica et al. 2016; Brandolini et al. 2019).

Outside protected areas such as geosites, geoparks and others, the importance of landforms is often underrated and the protection (if any) of potentially interesting geomorphic features is frequently limited or poorly targeted. These features, therefore, are often carelessly altered or removed, particularly during the building of infrastructures or the expansion of urban and agricultural areas.

In a paper recently published on the Springer’s journal Geoheritage (a view-only version is available at I argue that outside protected areas the conservation of landforms would benefit from specific approaches, and propose one such approach based on methods originally developed for assessing the value of geomorphological heritage sites (e.g. Reynard 2009, Mucivuna et al. 2019). These methods involve considering a number of relevant characteristics of a site (from its scientific importance to its cultural significance) which are usually evaluated separately and assigned qualitative scores, that are then weighted and summed to obtain the site overall value. The assumption underlying the paper is that every landform has a value that should be acknowledged, can be ranked on a qualitative scale using the methods mentioned above and must consistently be taken into account – particularly when planning land use changes - in order to decide whether and how to protect the geomorphological features of an area.

Furthermore, the work put forward the notion of an "exclusion approach" to geomorphological protection, whereby all landforms deserve some form of conservation except those whose value (potential or actual) is considered too low. How and to what degree the other landforms should be conserved is a problem that must be dealt with case by case. The goal of such an approach is not to prevent anthropogenic geomorphological changes, but rather to promote changes based on knowledge (about the presence and relevance of landforms), responsibility (what landforms to conserve, to what degree and how) and caution (in altering and eliminating landforms) in accordance with the principles and values of geoethics and sustainable development (Di Capua et al. 2017 and 2021; Gill and Smith 2021; Peppoloni and Di Capua 2021). The pros and cons of the proposed method and of the exclusion approach are of course open to debate, but perhaps it can be agreed that geoconservation should be further extended to everyday territories as much as ecological conservation cannot be identified anymore with protected areas only.


Brandolini F, Cremaschi M, Pelfini M (2019) Estimating the Potential of Archaeo-Historical Data in the Definition of Geomorphosites and Geo-Educational Itineraries in the Central Po Plain (N Italy). Geoheritage. 10.1007/s12371-019-00370-5.

Cameron E (2022) Outside Geomorphosites. Geoheritage.

Clivaz M, Reynard E (2017) How to Integrate Invisible Geomorphosites in an Inventory: a Case Study in the Rhone River Valley (Switzerland). Geoheritage.

Di Capua G, Bobrowsky PT, Kieffer SW, Palinkas C (eds., 2021) Geoethics: Status and Future Perspectives. Geological Society of London Special Publication 108.

Di Capua G, Peppoloni S, Bobrowsky PT (2017) The Cape Town Statement on Geoethics. Annals of Geophysics, 60, Fast Track 7.

Fouache E, Rasse M (2009) Archaeology, geoarchaeology and geomorphosite management: towards a typology of geoarchaeosites. In: Reynard E, Coratza P, Regolini – Bissig G (eds.) Geomorphosites. Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, München, pp. 213-223.

Gill JC, Smith M (2021) Geosciences and the Sustainable Development Goals. Springer.

Mucivuna VC, Reynard E, Da Glória Motta Garcia M (2019) Geomorphosites Assessment Methods: Comparative Analysis and Typology. Geoheritage.

Peppoloni S. and Di Capua G. (2021). Geoethics to Start Up a Pedagogical and Political Path towards Future Sustainable Societies. Sustainability, 13(18), 10024.

Pica A, Luberti GM, Vergari F, Fredi P, Del Monte M (2017) Contribution for an urban geomorphoheritage assessment method: proposal for three geomorphosites in Rome (Italy). Quaestiones Geographicae 36(3):21-37.

Pica A, Vergari F, Fredi P., Del Monte M (2016). The Aeterna Urbs Geomorphological Heritage (Rome, Italy). Geoheritage 8:31-42.

Reynard E (2009) The assessment of geomorphosites. In: Reynard E, Coratza P, Regolini – Bissig G (eds.) Geomorphosites. Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, München, pp. 63-71


Other articles published in the IAPG Blog:

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics

Tuesday, January 18, 2022

A talk on geoethics in Germany

26 January 2022
18:00 CET

Online Talk (in German) by Dr. Simon Schneider (IAPG-Germany co-coordinator) by invitation of the Geologische Gemeinschaft zu Freiberg e.V.

The talk is entitled "Geoethik - Wer Relevanz einfordert muss Verantwortung übernehmen" (Geoethics - Those who demand relevance must take responsibility).

To participate, please send an email to for login information.

More about the event:


Other events on geoethics:

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics:

Saturday, January 8, 2022

COP26 and Geoethics

by David Ovadia*

David Ovadia is an IAPG member, former coordinator of IAPG-UK. He was the Director of International at the British Geological Survey and is currently the Chairman of Golden Metal Resources Ltd., but writes here in a personal capacity.

Picture credit: Photo by Max Harlynking from Burst.

David Ovadia
I was asking myself about the implications from COP26 on Geoethics. The main message from Glasgow was that much of the world has agreed to move to net carbon zero during the next few decades as the main way of mitigating anthropogenic climate change. This will reduce the use of fossil fuels and increase renewable power generation. Given that the raison d'être of many geoscientists, directly or indirectly is in support of the natural resources extractives sector, is it ethically right to promote the elimination of coal and oil and other minerals, and the jobs they pay for, including those in their related academic fields? Of course it is …. but wait, is it that simple?

Let us look for a moment at wind generation of electricity. Love them or hate them, our hills and offshores are becoming covered by more and more wind turbines. During their operating lifetime, we can look forward to them producing wonderful carbon free electricity to heat our homes, power our factories and fuel our electric vehicles, provided the wind is blowing, of course. So we can calculate the total number of gigawatt hours of green energy that each one will produce over, say, a 25 year period of operation. Except that we have to subtract from that number the gigawatt hours equivalent of energy that is required to mine the bauxite, convert it to aluminium and then manufacture the blades for use in said wind turbine. And then there is the very significant amount of energy required to produce the massive concrete base to which the turbine is fixed, and mine the tons of copper to make the miles of copper cables that are needed to connect it to the grid and deliver the power, and fuel the helicopters and boats and trucks needed to service and maintain the turbine. You will get the idea …. a lot of mainly hydrocarbon energy has to go into the equation to get green energy out of it. But how much goes in and how much comes out? I do not know and nowhere I have looked seems to tell me, probably because it is politically expedient to avoid such awkward calculations that might, or might not, reveal that wind power is not so green after all. And geologists employed to find (or to give university lectures on) copper or bauxite or rare earths might not be too keen to ask these questions either. But if ethics are about honesty and transparency, should not the matter be looked into, and if so, by whom?

Let us consider the matter of nuclear power. The ethical considerations relating to this get very interesting and go well beyond Geoethics themselves, although geoscientists should be taking and publicising a position on it. Is it morally and ethically correct if an economically developed, democratic western country turns its back on nuclear energy under pressure from the green lobby only to replace the energy by sourcing natural gas obtained from potentially undemocratic places where human rights are compromised. Should not the geoscientists be presenting an honest and fair picture of the risks and rewards of nuclear power, including micro-nuclear, that include proper and full explanations of how and where to source uranium and how to dispose of nuclear waste in geological settings?
Similar considerations apply to electric vehicles. Aside from the true greenness of the electricity that fuels them, geoscientists are pivotal to the supply of lithium, nickel and other minerals essential to the batteries, and the disposal or recycling thereof at their end of life.

I suspect that most people reading this will think that it is all very obvious but not the business of geoscientists to comment, because it is political rather than scientific. In my view, not commenting is unethical and dishonest. The Covid-19 pandemic has shown us that, in many countries, governments have made difficult decisions based on clear, open and transparent science. The maxim “scientists advise, ministers decide” is often said and seems to be acceptable to the general public. But I am not seeing anything like the same level of clear, open and transparent advice going from geoscientists to decision makers on the other important matter of 2021, climate change. From what I saw of COP26, everyone who attended, including the media, went in with more-or-less the same opinions and left with those same opinions strengthened. There was little true scientific debate, only arguments about time scales and how much money should be flowing from one place to another to pay for it. Geoscientists should be at the forefront of providing evidence based advice, yet seem strangely muted. Our ethics are about telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so I look forward to hearing more loudly from the geoscience community on all aspects of the outcomes from COP26.


Other articles published in the IAPG Blog:

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics

Friday, January 7, 2022

Call for abstracts EGU2022 (deadline is approaching)

Session EOS4.1
Geoethics in the face of global anthropogenic changes: how do we intersect different knowledge domains?

12 January 2022, 13:00 CET

Silvia Peppoloni, John Ludden, Luiz Oosterbeek, Pimnutcha Promduangsri, Billy Williams

Co-sponsoring organizations:
International Association for Promoting Geoethics (IAPG), American Geophysical Union (AGU), International Council for Philosophy and Human Sciences (CIPSH), International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS).

Session description:
How can geosciences serve society in addressing global anthropogenic changes, such as climate change, hazards and risks, natural resources exploitation? Which is the societal role geoscientists play within society? How much ethics is important in geosciences?
These are only some of the fundamental questions that modern geoscientists, aware of the ethical implications of their profession, should ask themselves.
As any scientist, geoscientists have responsibilities in developing excellent science and international cooperation, as well as in communicating scientific knowledge to different stakeholders. Specifically, geoscientists have great responsibility in creating methods and technologies for assuring people’s safety and a responsible use of planet Earth as entity and of its georesources, to guarantee public welfare and sustainable life conditions for present and future generations.
The complexity of the world and problems affecting it requires interdisciplinary approaches and cooperation, capable of synthesizing a range of knowledge, methods, tools. This is one of the goals of promoting geoethical thinking.
The purpose of this session is to create an opportunity for thinking and discussing about ethical, societal and social implications of global problems investing issues at the intersection between geosciences, humanities, and social sciences, with the objective of framing global anthropogenic changes as the crisis of the 21st century.
Conveners invite colleagues to confront on these topics from their professional perspectives, by presenting concepts, investigations, experiences, methods, problems, practices, case studies on ethical, societal and social perspectives to address global warming, exploitation of natural resources, risk reduction, conservation of geoheritage, science communication and education, to provide food for thought and create connections between different disciplinary fields, with the aim to build a genuine interdisciplinary community.
This session celebrates 10 years since the foundation of the IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics (, and is co-sponsored by AGU - American Geophysical Union, CIPSH - International Council for Philosophy and Human Sciences, and IUGS - International Union of Geological Sciences.

Rules about abstract submission at the EGU 2022:

Abstract submission in the session EOS4.1:

More about sessions and the short course on geoethics at the EGU2022:


Other events on geoethics:

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics:

Tuesday, January 4, 2022

Just published in the journal "Nature"

Di Capua G., Bohle M., Hildebrandt D., Marone E., Peppoloni S. & Schneider S. (2022). Push for ethical practices in geoscience fieldworkNature, 601, 26.


Other publications on geoethics on the IAPG website:
IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics: