In tech we trust: A history of technophilia in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) climate mitigation expertise

This article examines the technocentric bias that characterizes climate mitigation literature, focusing on the reports of the IPCC's Working Group III. This bias stems from structural features of the scientific field that prioritizes innovation, leading to the overrepresentation of technological solutions in climate research. Funding mechanisms further reinforce this tendency by incentivizing collaboration with industrial R&D, creating a self-reinforcing loop in which scientific authority and industrial interests converge. The IPCC's institutional positioning—as a policy-relevant yet politically cautious body—amplifies this dynamic by favoring allegedly “cost-effective” technological pathways that lack practical feasibility. The article traces the historical roots of this technocentric bias to the 1970s, when nuclear energy was envisioned as a solution to both energy scarcity and climate change. Drawing on archival sources, it also explores the influence of U.S. diplomacy in shaping international expertise on mitigation. Subsequent sections show how the rise of the “sustainable development” agenda allowed the integration of fossil fuel interests into the production of mitigation science. This process culminated in the centrality of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) technologies in IPCC's net-zero scenarios. The article argues that mitigation expertise must confront its technocentric bias. A difficult but necessary step is to acknowledge that net-zero targets for 2050–2070 as currently envisioned through technological solutions, are unattainable. Maintaining this illusion fosters false optimism, legitimizes support for speculative technologies, narrows the range of viable policy options, and postpones the structural transformations. Climate expertise must shift from tech illusions to concrete proposals on sufficiency, redistribution, sectoral degrowth and structural change—or risk delaying meaningful action.