Articel Content
“Some fundamental uncertainties remain”.
Interview: Matthias Geering and Thomas Pfluger
UNI NOVA spoke to Frank Krysiak about sustainability research and its importance to Swiss politics.
Professor of Environmental Economics, Frank Krysiak leads the Competence Center for Research in Energy, Society and Transition (CREST) run by the University of Basel and Zurich University of Applied Sciences. He would like to see high-quality research making a contribution to society.
UNI NOVA: Professor Krysiak, we are moving toward a more sustainable society. Is there really still a need for research, or would action not be more appropriate?
FRANK KRYSIAK: We are all agreed that we need sustainability. However, we are not agreed on what this means. Research can help us to understand what form sustainable development should take in Switzerland in the next 20 years.
UNI NOVA: What type of research do we need here?
KRYSIAK: At the University of Basel, I see our role as one of basic research because there are still some fundamental uncertainties in many aspects. One of my topics is dealing with uncertainties, weighing up opportunities and risks. Take the energy transition. We are investing in renewable energies and energy efficiency. How do we assess whether this is sustainable? If the probability is sufficiently great that people will look back in a few decades’ time and regard the energy transition as a good thing, then it can be considered sustainable. Sustainability is an extraordinarily complex issue. The more we research, the more questions we have.
UNI NOVA: Can you explain this complexity?
KRYSIAK: Basically, the idea is to guarantee the well-being of future generations of humans. To do so, we want, for example, to move to renewable energies, reduce CO2 emissions, preserve biodiversity and protect plant and wildlife. We can try to solve all these problems to an equal degree, but this would be enormously costly. Therefore, we look at how we can weigh up the various objectives against one another. Perhaps it is permissible to let one or two species die out if this enables us to achieve something else that is sufficiently positive. Today, many researchers work on the assumption that sustainability objectives can be weighed against each other – within certain boundaries. Once we have set ourselves targets of this type, we can decide what instruments we need to achieve them.
UNI NOVA: What form can these instruments take?
KRYSIAK: One approach we are currently investigating is a scorecard. This would measure the various activities of a company with regard to sustainability. The company would have to achieve a certain overall sustainability value, but would not have to perform well in every single aspect. For example, more emissions of a particular pollutant would be permitted if its performance in another area were deemed positive.
UNI NOVA: Who determines how this scorecard would be structured, what sustainability would involve – science or politics? Is there a conflict here?
KRYSIAK: The situation tends to be as follows: Scientists approach society with various offerings. Society then has to say what it wants. A few years ago, Swiss politicians opted for what is known as ‘Weak sustainability plus’. This prescribes a certain degree of flexibility when implementing sustainability measures, but adheres to minimum standards in all areas.
UNI NOVA: But public opinion can be highly volatile. After the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, it was thought that nothing would be the same again. But already, discussion of the matter has all but ceased.
KRYSIAK: I see things a little differently. Following long-term developments, Fukushima provided the final impetus, as it were, to begin the withdrawal from nuclear energy. Even before Fukushima, it would have been difficult to find anyone willing to invest billions in a new nuclear power plant.
UNI NOVA: The political expectation is that your research will deliver findings that can be implemented directly. Are you under a lot of pressure?
KRYSIAK: There is definitely a real pressure to produce quick results. The political processes leading to the energy transition are underway, and a scientific basis is required to make decisions. This is one of the aims of CREST – providing quality-assured answers to social questions.
UNI NOVA: How do you deal with these expectations?
KRYSIAK: We work with a mix of simpler and riskier projects. Some are certain to provide clear findings, such as a project to redesign the approval processes for solar, wind and geothermal technology. Other investigations involve a high risk because nobody has proceeded in this way before. For example, we ask what form a robust energy policy would take, a policy that continues to work even if external circumstances change – for example, if the EU takes a completely different path than currently envisaged. Naturally, we hope that something will come out of this, but we cannot guarantee it.
UNI NOVA: So these questions originate from politics or society?
KRYSIAK: Usually. But it can also work the other way around – sometimes, research findings trigger political processes. For example, we – and other researchers – have suggested introducing differentiated taxation for electricity instead of a cost-covering feed-in rate. Electricity from renewable sources would then be taxed at a lower rate or not at all. The aim here is to prevent coal-fired electricity from being imported when Switzerland’s nuclear plants are powered down. This would create an incentive to use renewable energy.
UNI NOVA: The current management system for energy is complex. The government, cantons and municipalities all get involved with their own instruments aimed at reducing energy consumption and promoting renewable energy. Are you trying to find simpler solutions for the whole of Switzerland?
KRYSIAK: We are looking for solutions that can be launched in parallel to the current instruments. They should gradually begin to take effect and replace the old instruments. But first, we need to be certain that the new instruments work. And for this we need a period of transition and research. This development will end with an ecological tax reform. But that will take a few more decades.
UNI NOVA: Environmental economics and energy research undoubtedly make a key contribution to sustainability research. What role do other academic disciplines play?
KRYSIAK: Many subject areas make important contributions: for example, law and sociology. Naturally, the natural sciences play a core role too. Without their results, we would not be able to define the objectives of sustainable development. However, it strikes me that natural scientists can sometimes lose sight of the bigger picture. A few years ago, I was invited to a biodiversity conference. Every speaker presented one species of animal that was particularly worthy of protection. As an economist, I said that we can protect all these creatures, but at the cost of a few million human lives. Money used for this purpose cannot be used for other things. Sometimes we need to go without! For me, weighing up what we really want to do in aid of sustainability and what we have to relinquish is central.
UNI NOVA: So the natural sciences need to keep the bigger picture in mind.
KRYSIAK: We need to come closer together. The natural scientists need a better overview. On the other hand, economists and social scientists need to refrain from researching only at a meta level. Rather than spending another 50 years on a precise definition of sustainability, we should start taking specific action.