HOW TECHNOLOGY BRIDGES POLICY AND PROCESS
David Victor, a professor at the University of California, San Diego, and director of a faculty research effort called the Deep Decarbonization Initiative, views technology as central to modern climate change research — not just as a tool for discovery, but as a driver of political and economic feasibility.
“Technology makes it possible to break the link between economic growth and emissions,” he said. “When technology lowers the cost of controlling emissions, it makes the politics easier.”
Victor said advancements in renewable energy systems, electric vehicles and carbon removal technologies have redefined climate solutions in recent years.
The Deep Decarbonization Initiative, for example, explores advanced battery storage and fuel cells to facilitate the integration of renewable energy sources. UC San Diego also operates a microgrid that tests sustainable energy systems. Researchers there are developing clean energy solutions ranging from biofuels derived from algae to solar energy forecasting models.
On the methodological front, AI and computational tools are transforming how researchers analyze environmental data. The Center for Environmental Policy and Behavior (CEPB) at the University of California, Davis, uses AI to process social science data.
“Computational technology is an important frontier for the sort of research that we do,” Mark Lubell, co-director of the CEPB, said. “The extent that those computational techniques become faster, more precise, through the use of AI and other sorts of emerging computational technologies, that's where it affects what we do.”
TENUOUS FEDERAL FUNDING
Both Victor and Lubell lead research on environmental changes on a variety of fronts. The Deep Decarbonization Initiative at UC San Diego considers science, engineering, policy and economy questions related to low- and zero-carbon energy production. The CEPB at UC Davis offers scientific analysis of how policy institutions, political decisions and human behavior interact and influence environmental conflicts.
Both are reliant to some extent on federal funding, and they expect change in the nature of securing that funding for climate change research.
In the past, agencies like the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation have fueled this kind of research. But a federal administration staffed by people who have expressed hostility toward climate policies and regulations might change the budget structure and priorities of these institutions, forcing researchers to pivot.
Project 2025, for example, suggests dismantling or restructuring federal agencies related to climate change and prioritizing fossil fuels over renewable energies, like the solar and biofuel solutions being studied at UC San Diego.
“I think there's a lot of fear of change, because the stated policies of people in the Trump administration are very, very aggressive,” Victor said.
However, Victor said structural barriers like Senate filibuster rules make that level of fundamental change more difficult. Additionally, federal funding that is already approved is likely not in danger, Lubell said.
Researchers reliant on federal funding have adapted in the past, often reframing their work to align with broader priorities like “energy independence” or “critical infrastructure resilience,” Lubell said.
State governments and private foundations can act as safety nets, potentially increasing their funding opportunities to make up the difference, Lubell said. However, “the state only has so much money,” he added, and securing private philanthropic funding can be a very different process from replying to a public, national request for proposals.
To other climate change researchers, Victor and Lubell advised perseverance.
“We should expect a lot of chaos and less change than feared,” Victor said.
