Juliette Blanchet is CNRS research director at the Institute of Environmental Geosciences (IGE) in Hydroclimatologie and Co-Anime The Regional Expertise Group on the Alpes-Auvergne climate (Greek AA). Attracted very early by research, she returns here to the way in which her interest in geosciences, then for scientific mediation, was gradually built in connection with her ecological commitment.
What is your research work in hydroclimatology?
Hydroclimatology is the part of the climatology interested in the water cycle, more particularly in connection with the precipitation regime and its consequences for the environment. In my work, I study extreme events in the context of climate change by looking at, for example, the evolution of the characteristics of strong thunderstorms in relation to past events and their evolution in the future, especially with regard to the frequency of events but also of their intensity. I also look at water shortages, that is to say droughts, and their evolution. I work on data typically dating back to the 1950s and on climatic projections that can go up to 2100.
How did you manage to study these subjects?
Although research was an engine in my career, hydroclimatology was not the theme I was considering. After studying math, I was rather interested in theoretical approaches than applied and I made my thesis in statistical modeling for images recognition. Then, as my sensitivity to ecology developed, I wondered about the purpose of what I did that seemed above ground. I turned to geosciences and went to work at the Snow Research Institute and SLF avalanches in Switzerland. It was there that I found a professional framework that spoke to me with subjects that made sense to me. Even today I can see the usefulness in what I do, my curiosity is constantly sharp and I have the impression that I can never get tired of it.
Intervention by J. Blanchet during the École Arts et Sciences de l École des Houches in March 2025
© D. Peyronel, IPSL
What place does mediation occupy in your activity?
Trying to convince, getting ideas and circulating knowledge outside the academic world is one of the interests of research. Faced with the climatic issues that affect, not a part of the population, but each of us, It is all the more important to fulfill our scientific mission to transmit knowledge to the greatest number. But it is also necessary to find a balance with your research activity, that is to say, contribute to the production of knowledge, and its extra-professional life because interventions can quickly become time consuming and many requests are for interventions in the evening and the weekend. It is important to set limits so as not to overflow too much on personal time, even if you are passionate and there is a need to respond to increasing requests for expertise.
What is the place of the scientist in the public debate around climatic questions?
This is a question that is debated within the scientific community. Some scientists make politically initiated interventions. Personally, I think that We are there to transmit the state of knowledge and give the actors all the keys to understanding climate change and making decisions in a lit mannerbut not to give our personal opinion. It is a question of saying what we know but also what we do not know, because climatology is a very perfectible science, then it is up to policies to decide and citizens to vote for the measures they wish to see put in place. If I do not give my political opinion as a scientist, as a citizen I try to align my lifestyle with the issues I study that confront me with the climate emergency. It is not only a question of alerting to the fact that must be act, but of embodying this commitment and starting to act yourself.
© D. Peyronel, IPSL
What are your mediation actions with public actors?
I work a lot with the metropolis of Grenoble on adaptation and risk issues, especially flooding. I was asked to provide knowledge or understand the needs but I have never accompanied the decision -making processes. By intervening in upstream, I have the feeling that research results suffer from a lack of visibility and that it is easier for decision -makers to put them aside. Ideally, scientists should be included in downstream to downstream processes, that is to say, from the contribution of knowledge to support for decision-making, but it is in my opinion rarely the case. At present, There is still a real need for mediation within the political world. I was able to realize this during an intervention with public actors in the context of compulsory training of state officials. Faced with the stake of the water resource, one of them proposed to get water on the comets with rockets. Even in the high public service, we are still far from understanding the issues related to the climate.
What in your opinion brakes on the appropriation of climatic knowledge in the field by citizens and politicians?
It may be less of a problem of appropriation and contribution of knowledge than the difficulty of changing the state of mind. This concerns public actors as well as citizens. There are territories where climate research is better taken into account than others in public policies but the short time of mandates makes it difficult to implement long -term climatic policies. Many of the actions carried out are the fruit of measures to reaction to crises and not planning. But it is not just public actors to act. During the Citizen Convention for the Climate of the Metropolis of Grenoble, of which I was part of the steering committee, I could see that many citizens tend to wait for others to act. It is still complicated for some to accept to change their habits. Gold, An individual level is essential to support the overall change which is essential.
You can find Juliette Blanchet’s publications here.
Read also: alpine floods and climate change | Echosciences – Grenoble
Louise Chevallier
