Abstract. The threat posed to humanity by global warming has led scientists to question the nature of their activities and the need to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from research. Until now, most studies have aimed at quantifying the carbon footprints and relatively less works have addressed the ways GHG emissions can be significantly reduced. A factor two reduction by 2030 implies to think beyond increases in the efficacy of current processes, which will have a limited effect, and beyond wishful thinking about large new sources of energy. Hence, choices among research questions or allocated means within a given field will be needed. They can be made in light of the perceived societal utility of research activities. Here, we addressed the question of how scientists perceive the impact of GHG reduction on their discipline and a possible trade-off between the societal utility of their discipline and an acceptable level of GHG emissions. We conducted 28 semi-directive interviews of French astrophysicists from different laboratories. Our most important findings are that, for most researchers, astronomy is considered to have a positive societal impact mainly regarding education but also because of the fascination it exerts on at least a fraction of the general public. Technological applications are also mentioned but with relatively less emphasis. The reduction of GHG emissions is believed to be necessary and most often reductions within the private-sphere have been achieved. However, the question of community-wide reductions in astrophysics research, and in particular the possible reductions of large facilities reveals much more contrasted opinions. In conclusion, semi-directive interviews appear as a powerful tool, complementary to quantitative surveys, to understand the attitudes of scientists with respect to the trajectories and the choices that need to be made by scientific communities in the context of global warming.