This text has been translated from Norwegian with the assistance of GPT UiO.
– How is your research put to use?
– I firmly believe that the better people understand the challenges of climate policy, the more capable they’ll be of navigating them. I hope to help people become a little better at designing and implementing climate policy, and at learning from the process, but it’s not easy to point to concrete outcomes of my research. Because climate policy can be politically contentious and the countervailing forces strong, it can be difficult to put my knowledge into practice. However, resistance to climate transitions is also something I can help people to understand.
– My research on public climate governance and climate policy in the EU, in Norway and in other countries is relevant for climate experts, politicians, and anyone with an interest in climate. Civil servants, businesses and environmental organisations are often very interested in what I work on, and at times I also encounter a strong thirst for knowledge among politicians.
– I’m in close contact with climate researchers from many disciplines. Those engaged in more classical climate research have painfully experienced that their warnings aren’t always heeded, yet they don’t always understand why. It used to be common to believe that natural science combined with a bit of economics gave us the knowledge needed to solve the problem, but few think that way now. Both decision-makers and climate researchers have learned that climate change is above all a societal problem - a political and social challenge - and not simply a market failure. Natural science, economics and technological expertise are crucial, but on their own they don’t provide sufficient insight into what authorities can and should do in the different phases of the transition to net zero greenhouse gas emissions. Political stumbling blocks may well be the biggest obstacles, which is why I sense a thirst for political science knowledge. Fortunately, we now have much more relevant research to offer than a few years ago, far beyond the work I’m involved in. There are still many things we haven’t studied well enough, but new and better research is published all the time.
– Who used the results - for instance in policy, in practice, in private sector, public administration or civil society?
– Through the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Swedish Climate Policy Council, I’ve had very good opportunities to communicate my research to civil servants and decision-makers, especially in Sweden but also elsewhere in the world. In Norway, too, I’m often invited to contribute to climate policy processes, and environmental authorities tend to be particularly interested. Twenty-eight countries worldwide have established scientific climate councils to provide evidence-based advice on climate policy. Since we don’t have such a council in Norway, it’s more challenging to communicate my research to decision-makers in my own country.
– These are dark times, and the leaders of major superpowers often seem uninterested in solving societal challenges. That will slow the transition and make climate change even more dramatic than what we’re already experiencing. My research can’t change that, of course, and it will be demanding to live well in a society facing severe climate change while simultaneously succeeding in cutting emissions. I’m convinced that interest in climate will return — at least in countries that maintain academic freedom and democracy. When that happens, decision-makers should have a wealth of good, relevant knowledge readily available.
– There are differences between countries in terms of which fields are most listened to in climate policy. While Norwegian authorities have traditionally paid most attention to economic research, Denmark and Germany have given more space to engineers and technologists. Sweden stands out by valuing a broader range of experts from the social sciences and the humanities. The United States under Biden also moved in that direction. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that I was invited to join the Swedish Climate Policy Council. I’m proud to be the only non-Swedish expert to have been a member there. I learned a lot from the experience.
– How have you worked to ensure that your research contributes to a positive social development?
– I want to be constructive, not just studying why climate governance is difficult, but also proposing political solutions that might work. That’s easier said than done, because political scientists have far better tools for explaining what went wrong than for giving advice about the future. We’re improving, and many of us are committed to making our discipline useful. There’s no contradiction between excellent research and delivering applicable knowledge. It’s much easier to argue that research should be put to use when it’s good.
– Since many countries have succeeded in cutting their emissions significantly, we finally have a wealth of solid empirical cases to study. This development makes it much easier to identify which types of climate governance can reduce emissions, even though no one quite knows how we’re going to reach net zero emissions.
– The relationship between research and politics has also become one of my research interests. I like to think that what I’ve learned has made me better able to contribute with useful knowledge and to be a better lead author for the IPCC than I was the first time I participated.
– Do you have any tips or experiences you want to share with colleagues, so that their research is put to use?
– My starting point is that those of us working at UiO have an obligation to communicate beyond our students, though it’s not necessary to do so all the time. Other tasks are often more important. When I receive a request, I ask myself three questions: Will it be fun? Do I have something important to say? Can I learn something by taking part? If I answer yes to several of these, I should accept the invitation. Perhaps others might benefit from asking themselves the same questions?