Cooperation needed to save the climate.

– Almost nothing. Although more and more countries are taxing carbon dioxide emissions, according to the World Bank's latest report, only 4 percent have the tax rate required to achieve the temperature targets in the Paris Agreement, says Åsa Löfgren. She is an environmental economist, conducts research on climate and behavioural economics, and was an observer at the COP26 Climate Change Conference in Glasgow.

Text: Eva Lundgren Photo: Johan Wingborg

– Being out with Lily is one of the best things there is, says Åsa Löfgren, who is on a lunch time walk with her dog in the December snow when the GU Journal catches up with her. She has recently returned from Glasgow, and most of her thinking revolves around what was achieved there, including the so-called Glasgow Climate Pact. – During the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in 2009, work commenced on a bottom-up model, which was then formalized in the Paris Agreement in 2015. It means that the countries themselves set goals for their contribution to reducing climate change, something I was initially very hesitant about. Now in Glasgow, we also saw that the level of ambition was nowhere near sufficient. In the new Climate Pact, the countries have therefore committed themselves to updating their targets as early as by 2022. In the new Climate Pact, the countries have therefore committed themselves to updating their targets as early as by 2022. I try to be optimistic and hope that it will mean more ambitious plans. Other stakeholders, from cities to industrial and financial stakeholders, also seem to have been impressed by the bottom-up process, and are now coming up with goals and commitments themselves, Åsa Löfgren points out. – However, it remains to be seen how much difference these initiatives make. We know from the IPCC report that we must reduce global emissions by 40–50 percent in the coming decade; and for some countries the situation is already acute, such as for the Maldives, whose islands are at risk of being submerged by the sea.

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement is another important but sensitive issue, says Åsa Löfgren. – The article concerns the countries' trade in emission reductions. For example, Brazil wanted to be able to sell emission reductions through the replanting of rainforest, but at the same time also wanted to be able to include the reductions themselves, i.e. a kind of double-entry bookkeeping. After intense discussions, however, they backed down. However, not only countries, but also private companies, want to trade in

emission reductions. The new wording in Article 6, however, seems to make this much more expensive, as the requirements for what counts as emission reductions will become stricter. As Sir David Attenborough pointed out in his speech at the opening of the COP26 Climate Change Conference: there is only one figure that counts, and that is the one that shows the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Environmental and climate issues are typical examples of problems that must be dealt with across disciplinary boundaries and together with the rest of society. And throughout her working life, Åsa Löfgren has worked in an interdisciplinary manner, often in projects financed by Mistra.

Right now, for example, she is involved in Mistra Carbon Exit, where researchers analyse what technical possibilities, instruments and behavioural changes are required to achieve Sweden's climate goal of zero emissions by 2045. This includes the base materials industry. – The manufacture of base materials, such as steel and cement, involves substantial emissions of carbon dioxide. Making the processes more climate neutral requires huge investment, which of course leads to more expensive materials. So how do you get construction companies to choose climate-friendly cement if the price is 70 percent higher? My colleagues Johan Rootzén and Filip Johnsson have shown that if you incorporate the cost increase into the house construction as a whole, it is vanishingly small in relation to everything else. But that requires collaboration throughout an entire value chain, which is a challenge. Solving that dilemma requires ingenuity in terms of policies, so that we get rules that support environmentally-friendly solutions without hampering competition. This is an example of how policy innovation can be just as important as technical inventions when it comes to climate-smart solutions.

Within UGOT, the CeCAR research centre is also studying how climate and environmental issues can be managed efficiently. Åsa Löfgren is the chairperson of the steering committee for the centre. – At CeCAR, we have identified four factors that could potentially lead to difficulties in terms of collective responsibility: that the problem is geographically dispersed, extended over time, complex and involves many different stakeholders. To a large extent, the climate issue is characterized by all these factors.

Roughly speaking, there are also three ways to deal with collective dilemmas: Firstly, to cooperate and try to contribute to a solution – no matter what others do, secondly to ignore them – no matter what others do, or

thirdly to contribute – provided that others do the same. – The majority of people belong to the third category and they can thus be influenced by making it easier for as many people as possible to behave in a sustainable manner. Intervention by a third party, such as the state or municipality, is often required. A clear example is public transport: If you want more people to take the bus to work, the municipality must of course ensure that there are good bus connections where people live.

One of Åsa Löfgren's most important tasks is to support policy makers to make wiser and more informed decisions. She did this in 2018–2020, when she was a member of the Swedish Climate Policy Council, which is tasked with evaluating whether the government's policies are in line with Sweden's climate goals 2045.

– But for me to be able to contribute in a beneficial way, being knowledgeable about environmental economics is not enough, I must also collaborate with other disciplines and professions, learn from them and see the value of their expertise. In society in general, people assume that economists, biologists and engineers would work together, but in academia, on the contrary, there is not much support for researchers who work across different disciplines.

People who engage in interdisciplinary research, for example, find it difficult to make a career out of it, Åsa Löfgren points out. – One reason may be that research that spans different disciplinary boundaries is not always so easy to assess. I also believe that there is a notion that broad perspectives are often equated with superficiality. But that's not my experience. Rather, you need to feel confident in your own discipline to be open to other ways of thinking. If the University of Gothenburg really thinks that interdisciplinarity is important, which it claims in its vision, then they must also support the researchers, centre formations and collaborations that are doing this, otherwise there will simply be no development in that dire

Nature, the environment and the oceans have always interested Åsa Löfgren. In upper-secondary school, for example, she learned how to scuba-dive and later trained as a dive master, in accordance with the internationally recognized PADI system. – In 1995, I was travelling around Australia and used a large part of the money I had saved for a diving trip by boat to the outermost part of the Great Barrier Reef. It is an amazing ecosystem and was a transformative experience. It was really gratifying to have seen it with my own eyes. – Currently during the pandemic, a lot of people have been outdoors enjoying nature, and it is, of course, a good thing for people to exercise. But I prefer it when it’s nice and quiet, and we are alone in the woods, my dog Lily and I.

Currently: Recently returned from the COP26 Climate Change Conference in Glasgow which was held from October 31 to November 12, where she was an observer. Works as: Associate Professor of Economics with a particular interest in climate and behavioural economics, chairperson of the steering committee of CeCAR, Centre for Collective Action Research, responsible for policy research within the framework of the research programme Mistra Carbon Exit. Where do you live? In Guldheden. Do you have a family? A husband and two children, a fluffy dog and an equally fluffy cat. What was the last book you read? Too Much Happiness by Alice Munro. What was the last film you watched? The French Dispatch. What is your favourite music? I listen to most kinds of music, but I’m an old Håkan Hellström fan. What is your favourite food? Sushi and strawberries (although not together). What are your hobbies? Writing, skiing, running in the woods and films – watching all kinds of films except historical costume dramas.