WEBVTT 00:00:05.008 --> 00:00:09.188 Welcome to the Convergent Science and Ernst Schumann Forum podcast on collaboration. 00:00:10.328 --> 00:00:14.508 I'm Paul Verhoor, and together with my colleague Andreas Roopstorf, 00:00:14.528 --> 00:00:15.948 we speak with Connie Hedegaard. 00:00:16.908 --> 00:00:20.548 Connie was European Commissioner for Climate Action in the European Commission 00:00:20.548 --> 00:00:25.188 and hosted the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in 2009 00:00:25.188 --> 00:00:27.448 on behalf of the Danish government. 00:00:28.288 --> 00:00:33.288 Currently, she chairs the European Commission's Mission Board on Adaptation to Climate Change. 00:00:34.048 --> 00:00:37.648 Connie discusses how collaboration occurs in a political context. 00:00:40.068 --> 00:00:43.408 Welcome, Connie, to our podcast. Thank you very much. 00:00:44.468 --> 00:00:49.828 Great that you could join us. But now before we really delve into the topic of collaboration, 00:00:50.688 --> 00:00:56.128 it would be extremely helpful where you could give us a bit of a sketch of your 00:00:56.128 --> 00:01:02.408 personal trajectory that brought you to where you are today in your professional life. 00:01:06.088 --> 00:01:12.188 I became a minister of the environment back in 2004 in Denmark. 00:01:13.328 --> 00:01:18.728 There I guess it was on day four that there was this guy in the ministry looking 00:01:18.728 --> 00:01:23.408 me into the eyes and said, by the way, what do you intend to do with the climate? 00:01:24.048 --> 00:01:28.928 That was quite a question to have after four days in the office. 00:01:28.928 --> 00:01:34.088 And I would say that since then that has been one of the topics that I have 00:01:34.088 --> 00:01:39.988 really been working with because my sense is that the more you know about climate change, 00:01:40.188 --> 00:01:44.868 the more you also understand why it's urgent that we address it, 00:01:44.948 --> 00:01:50.248 that we cope with it and that's why that's what I've been doing for five, six years as a minister, 00:01:50.368 --> 00:01:56.488 then five years as a EU commissioner and since the last six years or so from 00:01:56.488 --> 00:02:01.388 many different roles in different courts where sort of the golden thread would 00:02:01.388 --> 00:02:04.688 still very much be on what to do about climate change in business, 00:02:04.968 --> 00:02:06.268 in the investment community, 00:02:06.608 --> 00:02:09.968 in organizations, at Aarhus University and other places. 00:02:10.488 --> 00:02:15.188 But then before you became a minister, you came from an academic environment. 00:02:16.522 --> 00:02:23.782 No, I have an academic degree, but I was before that 14 years working as a journalist 00:02:23.782 --> 00:02:28.582 and had sort of a late night current affairs magazine, 00:02:28.982 --> 00:02:35.242 Denmark, known as Deadline, where you could sort of set each night. 00:02:35.342 --> 00:02:39.942 You could sort of decide what should be sort of the topic of the day. 00:02:40.022 --> 00:02:44.502 What is the most important thing to discuss today? And like many other people, 00:02:44.642 --> 00:02:50.082 I had this, you know, if it's going to be climate, can we find something else 00:02:50.082 --> 00:02:52.162 because it's complex, it's difficult. 00:02:52.902 --> 00:02:58.202 But that was at that time, of course, today would be much more sort of a natural thing. 00:02:58.302 --> 00:03:01.402 And you could also assume that people would have sort of a basic knowledge about 00:03:01.402 --> 00:03:03.942 what the challenge is all about. 00:03:04.362 --> 00:03:09.802 Right. So, Connie, what is collaboration and what is it good for? 00:03:12.082 --> 00:03:15.882 Well, as you can hear, I have a political background. In politics, 00:03:16.122 --> 00:03:18.922 you can't do anything unless you collaborate. 00:03:19.382 --> 00:03:25.182 I mean, it's not a one man or one woman show. You really have to work with others 00:03:25.182 --> 00:03:26.862 in order to achieve anything. 00:03:27.502 --> 00:03:33.502 And by the way, that is also sometimes where I see the academic world and the 00:03:33.502 --> 00:03:35.602 political world clashing. 00:03:35.762 --> 00:03:40.522 Because as a researcher, I know that many researchers are collaborating with 00:03:40.522 --> 00:03:44.882 others, but often you can sit there and you pursue your own truths. 00:03:45.162 --> 00:03:50.582 In politics, it's not enough that you believe that you yourself know what the 00:03:50.582 --> 00:03:53.122 truth is. I mean, you have to compromise. 00:03:53.542 --> 00:03:58.262 You have to give in. You have to identify landing zones. 00:03:59.482 --> 00:04:05.442 So compromise and collaboration, I would say, that is built in at least in the 00:04:05.442 --> 00:04:10.182 Danish political system, at least in the European policymaking process. 00:04:10.182 --> 00:04:16.582 You cannot achieve anything unless you understand not just how to work with 00:04:16.582 --> 00:04:19.142 other policymakers, but also 00:04:19.142 --> 00:04:24.522 you have to understand that decisions are not even political decisions. 00:04:24.742 --> 00:04:29.422 They are not just done within the formal political system. 00:04:30.125 --> 00:04:34.325 There are many other actors taking place in the decision-making, 00:04:34.445 --> 00:04:36.025 formally and informally. 00:04:36.185 --> 00:04:40.505 So you really have to work with the knowledge institutions. 00:04:41.325 --> 00:04:47.805 You have to work with business. You have to work with NGOs. You have to work with civil society. 00:04:48.145 --> 00:04:54.765 You really have to work with all sorts of actors. 00:04:54.765 --> 00:05:01.765 I normally say that when we back in 2014 finally had adopted at the EU level 00:05:01.765 --> 00:05:04.585 our 40% climate target for 2030. 00:05:05.165 --> 00:05:08.785 That was before Paris, that was in the run-out to the Paris Agreement. 00:05:09.225 --> 00:05:18.785 I mean, if people really knew how many buttons you had to push inside and outside 00:05:18.785 --> 00:05:22.285 the political world in order to make that happen. 00:05:22.285 --> 00:05:28.625 But I mean, I could write a whole book about how many buttons you had to push in order to pull it off. 00:05:28.865 --> 00:05:37.285 And that sometimes clashes with the textbook perception of how politics are being done. 00:05:37.685 --> 00:05:41.565 Because then you would say, yes, but politics is being done in the parliament 00:05:41.565 --> 00:05:44.505 or in the European institutions or whatever. 00:05:44.725 --> 00:05:49.685 There are some people elected to do that. But it's a much more complex game. 00:05:49.685 --> 00:05:56.805 And I think it gets ever more important for different stakeholders and environment 00:05:56.805 --> 00:06:02.945 these days who want to deal with the complex issues of our time to understand 00:06:02.945 --> 00:06:07.825 the complexity of decision making if they are going to make themselves heard. 00:06:07.825 --> 00:06:14.445 But for instance, also for the academic community, really to understand how 00:06:14.445 --> 00:06:22.265 these systems work, I would say is crucial in order to bring your knowledge into play. 00:06:22.465 --> 00:06:27.105 If you don't understand these processes, you can produce a lot of interesting 00:06:27.105 --> 00:06:28.805 and relevant knowledge out there. 00:06:29.513 --> 00:06:34.553 And then you could afterwards be really puzzled how come that the knowledge 00:06:34.553 --> 00:06:36.853 I have produced is not being reflected. 00:06:37.113 --> 00:06:43.593 So there is something there how different spheres will have to understand each 00:06:43.593 --> 00:06:49.773 other and benefit from each other and sort of co-fertilize each other. 00:06:49.953 --> 00:06:53.013 There is something I think we need to do much better. 00:06:53.193 --> 00:07:00.493 And I think that that is extremely difficult. It's easy to say that we should 00:07:00.493 --> 00:07:03.633 get rid of the silos. Everybody would sign up to that. 00:07:03.933 --> 00:07:06.753 But how do we really do it? 00:07:06.813 --> 00:07:14.233 How do we really work across silos, but not just across different knowledge 00:07:14.233 --> 00:07:20.973 hubs and specialties and expertises, but also between different policy levels, for instance, 00:07:21.233 --> 00:07:23.553 local, regional, national? 00:07:23.553 --> 00:07:25.593 I have a question, though. 00:07:25.673 --> 00:07:30.593 If we now step a little bit back from these really complex processes that you're describing, 00:07:30.793 --> 00:07:36.713 and I would like to learn more about them, but what are the defining features 00:07:36.713 --> 00:07:41.913 that makes them collaborative or not? What makes it a collaboration? 00:07:42.333 --> 00:07:49.393 What do people share to make it collaborative? Yeah, I think the first thing 00:07:49.393 --> 00:07:52.553 is to have sort of a shared perception that there is a problem, 00:07:52.673 --> 00:07:55.973 obviously, that at least would be in the political world. 00:07:56.193 --> 00:08:01.533 The other thing, if you're going to have real collaboration leading to anything, 00:08:01.793 --> 00:08:07.173 you need to be able to understand your counterpart's interests. 00:08:07.933 --> 00:08:14.113 And sometimes when results are not being produced, it is sometimes. 00:08:15.577 --> 00:08:22.957 Out of a lack of profound understanding of where do your counterparts come from? 00:08:23.097 --> 00:08:25.197 What is their profound interest? 00:08:25.877 --> 00:08:31.617 Where do they not look eye to eye to the problem the way you do? 00:08:31.877 --> 00:08:38.497 So really to understand the other and again to accept that you cannot have it 00:08:38.497 --> 00:08:43.077 100% your way because the others have some other interest. 00:08:43.077 --> 00:08:45.157 And really to understand that 00:08:45.157 --> 00:08:50.297 is probably the first prerequisite for being able to create any progress. 00:08:51.257 --> 00:08:55.397 Thank you, Conny. This is really, really interesting. And it almost redefines 00:08:55.397 --> 00:08:59.697 the political process as one that has to deal with collaboration. 00:09:00.277 --> 00:09:05.117 Now, you have experiences both from a national Danish context and from a European context. 00:09:05.397 --> 00:09:09.897 Would you say that it's the same things that counts in these two arenas? 00:09:09.897 --> 00:09:14.777 Or did you experience fundamental differences in how collaborations unfolded 00:09:14.777 --> 00:09:16.537 and what might make them stop? 00:09:18.557 --> 00:09:25.617 I'm sure that there are differences, but I think that the main observation is 00:09:25.617 --> 00:09:29.437 that it is not as different as one would assume. 00:09:30.357 --> 00:09:35.317 I mean, if you follow the debates in Denmark, but I'm sure it goes for every 00:09:35.317 --> 00:09:40.897 member state of the European Union, people would normally have this perception 00:09:40.897 --> 00:09:44.157 that it's so different down there in Brussels. 00:09:44.597 --> 00:09:48.337 And then you find out that, no, actually, it's not. 00:09:48.577 --> 00:09:53.217 Yes, it makes a difference whether you make regulation for 5.8 million people 00:09:53.217 --> 00:09:57.297 in Denmark or for 500 million people in Europe. 00:09:57.417 --> 00:10:05.637 But basically, the mechanisms to arrive to a decision is not that different. 00:10:05.857 --> 00:10:12.037 The interests, the lobbyists, they are even stronger at the European level. 00:10:12.177 --> 00:10:16.317 I mean, it goes without saying that if you, instead of one configuration of industry, 00:10:16.517 --> 00:10:24.117 you have that times 27 for each, one for each member state that they are working 00:10:24.117 --> 00:10:28.657 together at the European level, they get really powerful and they have many resources. 00:10:28.657 --> 00:10:35.977 So, the sizes and the proportion and the dimension can be different, 00:10:36.137 --> 00:10:42.517 but basically, the tools to make policy, they would be more or less the same. 00:10:42.697 --> 00:10:47.557 And maybe also to the surprise of some, it does not necessarily take longer 00:10:47.557 --> 00:10:54.737 time from you having an idea you want to carry through in a national context, 00:10:55.017 --> 00:10:57.377 respectively, in a European context. 00:10:57.377 --> 00:10:59.037 It does not necessarily take longer 00:10:59.037 --> 00:11:03.977 time to get big pieces of legislation through at the European level. 00:11:04.117 --> 00:11:08.457 And I guess that is also linked to the fact that the processes and procedures 00:11:08.457 --> 00:11:12.077 are not, in principle, they are not that different. 00:11:13.660 --> 00:11:18.080 Now, you mentioned that almost after the fifth day as a minister for the environment, 00:11:18.200 --> 00:11:22.180 it became clear to you that something needed to be done about the climate, right? 00:11:22.420 --> 00:11:26.160 And in a sense, since then, you haven't really looked back that that has been 00:11:26.160 --> 00:11:27.440 the main focus for what you did. 00:11:27.680 --> 00:11:32.600 Do you think that there is something particular about collaborating with respect 00:11:32.600 --> 00:11:37.220 to the climate and these kind of long-term and large-scale projects relative 00:11:37.220 --> 00:11:39.580 to other types of political work? 00:11:39.580 --> 00:11:43.640 Or would it also be the same, that it's really the same mechanisms at the stake 00:11:43.640 --> 00:11:45.440 in the same toolbox that's available? 00:11:46.600 --> 00:11:49.980 I think there are two differences. You touched upon the one, 00:11:50.100 --> 00:11:52.320 the short-term versus the longer-term. 00:11:53.840 --> 00:11:58.900 Now, unfortunately, because we actually start to feel climate change, 00:11:59.060 --> 00:12:03.400 now climate change is not a theoretical thing happening 10 years from now. 00:12:03.480 --> 00:12:08.520 It's kicking in. We feel it. So now it's getting more into the short-term politics 00:12:08.520 --> 00:12:14.000 as well. And in that sense, that is good because that is where it's needed. 00:12:15.300 --> 00:12:18.700 But I think that there is a difference in 00:12:18.700 --> 00:12:27.760 the complexity because you cannot cope in a cost-efficient and meaningful and 00:12:27.760 --> 00:12:36.620 fast enough way with climate change unless you really work across all the silos or work with the silos. 00:12:36.620 --> 00:12:40.660 You know, it's about energy, obviously. 00:12:41.060 --> 00:12:46.840 It is about transportation. It's about how we produce our food. 00:12:47.060 --> 00:12:51.400 It is about our consumption patterns, meaning it's very much at the core of 00:12:51.400 --> 00:12:53.080 the way we grow our economies. 00:12:53.520 --> 00:12:55.120 It's about geo-strategy. 00:12:55.640 --> 00:13:00.280 It's about our relations to other parts of the world and so on and so forth. 00:13:00.520 --> 00:13:05.160 It more or less has it all. It's also a security issue. It's about refugees. 00:13:05.160 --> 00:13:08.320 So, I mean, the complexity. 00:13:09.907 --> 00:13:17.367 When it comes to climate change, I would argue is even bigger than if you say, 00:13:17.447 --> 00:13:20.547 okay, how do we reform our school system? 00:13:20.687 --> 00:13:23.687 Or how do we change our pension system? 00:13:23.967 --> 00:13:27.507 How do we make a reform there? Here it is more complex. 00:13:27.707 --> 00:13:33.407 And it's of course also complex because it cannot just be a national topic, 00:13:33.687 --> 00:13:40.687 it has also, it will also inevitably end up being also an international, 00:13:41.127 --> 00:13:43.727 to have an international dimension. 00:13:44.207 --> 00:13:49.127 And that's, of course, where another layer of complexity is added. 00:13:50.167 --> 00:13:54.887 But Connie, now you identified two key features, right? 00:13:54.907 --> 00:14:00.367 On the one hand, it is to understand that there's a common problem and then 00:14:00.367 --> 00:14:05.827 to also have empathy with the perspective of the other parties, 00:14:06.167 --> 00:14:08.667 the other silos in that discussion. 00:14:09.487 --> 00:14:16.567 But now, if indeed a successful collaboration starts with identifying or having 00:14:16.567 --> 00:14:21.967 a common view on the problem, also with climate change, this is not necessarily the case. 00:14:22.687 --> 00:14:28.427 So how do you shape that common understanding of the problem? 00:14:29.207 --> 00:14:34.587 I think when it comes to climate, the IPCC and that process has helped a lot, 00:14:35.167 --> 00:14:38.047 and that is contrary to many other problems. 00:14:38.327 --> 00:14:41.107 It is, by the way, also contrary to, for instance, biodiversity. 00:14:41.467 --> 00:14:44.607 It's also a hugely complex issue. 00:14:45.754 --> 00:14:49.314 I'm not saying that there is not science there. Of course, there's a lot of 00:14:49.314 --> 00:14:54.994 science, but this structured way of presenting the science in the climate field 00:14:54.994 --> 00:14:58.494 that we have seen through the International Panel on Climate Change, 00:14:58.734 --> 00:15:11.614 that has helped to provide a profound joint understanding of the problem. 00:15:11.614 --> 00:15:14.494 It has taken much too long for my taste. 00:15:14.714 --> 00:15:21.274 But I mean, even if you are Saudi Arabia, an oil nation, or you are other gas and oil or coal states, 00:15:21.614 --> 00:15:29.294 today, you saw it in Glasgow recently, today you will not anymore hear countries 00:15:29.294 --> 00:15:33.014 questioning whether there is a problem or not. 00:15:33.014 --> 00:15:39.974 The scientific case has been made and has been accepted, and that is one of 00:15:39.974 --> 00:15:43.994 the reasons why it seems that the world, broadly speaking. 00:15:44.334 --> 00:15:52.034 Is now moving more and faster into the hows, how to do it, what to do. 00:15:52.034 --> 00:15:58.634 That was the case, say, 10 years ago, where there was still a number of countries 00:15:58.634 --> 00:16:06.074 who would use endless time in international for us to question whether there was a real issue or not, 00:16:06.234 --> 00:16:08.554 or whether we could not wait for action or not. 00:16:08.714 --> 00:16:14.974 So science has been extremely powerful there. That's interesting, right? 00:16:15.034 --> 00:16:20.574 Because you're implying that all the actors, even this complex debate on climate 00:16:20.574 --> 00:16:26.954 change, are in the end rational and also influenced by facts. 00:16:27.794 --> 00:16:30.434 Would you indeed believe that? 00:16:31.414 --> 00:16:37.394 If it was so simple, then of course the world would have gotten its act together, say, 20 years ago. 00:16:37.974 --> 00:16:40.314 So it takes... 00:16:41.352 --> 00:16:49.292 A long time to get to the stage where you stand on a common denominator of profound. 00:16:50.892 --> 00:16:55.012 Recognition that we must be science-based. How do you get there? 00:16:56.012 --> 00:17:00.072 That's the surprising thing, right? Like you say, if everyone would have been 00:17:00.072 --> 00:17:04.192 rational and fact-oriented, we would have done it after the Club of Rome wrote 00:17:04.192 --> 00:17:06.452 this report. But that didn't happen, right? 00:17:07.952 --> 00:17:13.292 What's the problem? How do you overcome it? I think two things that the IPCC 00:17:13.292 --> 00:17:18.272 reports have got even more sort of precise, even more serious, 00:17:18.472 --> 00:17:20.492 even more knowledge has been produced. 00:17:20.832 --> 00:17:29.532 But of course, it has also helped that reality kicked in. 00:17:29.532 --> 00:17:33.252 And that is, of course, the negative thing, that it's not enough, 00:17:33.432 --> 00:17:44.552 say, back in 10, 15 years ago, it was not enough as a scientist to warn people what would come by 2020. 00:17:44.552 --> 00:17:48.052 20 because somehow man 00:17:48.052 --> 00:17:50.832 is constructed in in 00:17:50.832 --> 00:17:54.172 the way that many people need to 00:17:54.172 --> 00:17:57.592 stand you know with with a flooded basement 00:17:57.592 --> 00:18:00.912 before they really understand oh that 00:18:00.912 --> 00:18:06.512 was what they were warning us against so it's it's a combination of ever more 00:18:06.512 --> 00:18:13.052 solid science ever more irrefutable science that also business and even the 00:18:13.052 --> 00:18:17.712 oil companies and everybody cannot any longer refuse this there. 00:18:18.072 --> 00:18:22.252 And then in combination with reality kicking in. 00:18:22.452 --> 00:18:28.992 And that also means with the economic consequences and the human consequences also being felt. 00:18:29.132 --> 00:18:34.292 That is, of course, pushing things further than would also be the case. 00:18:34.572 --> 00:18:40.192 But Connie, I don't want to be polemic about it, But this point you make now 00:18:40.192 --> 00:18:41.992 about also reality kicking in, 00:18:43.008 --> 00:18:47.088 Then you could argue that actually science has failed to get the message across. 00:18:47.308 --> 00:18:52.488 Because we first have to see islands disappear and jungles disappear and so 00:18:52.488 --> 00:18:58.748 on before, let's say, a significant group of actors. 00:18:59.788 --> 00:19:07.768 You can say that science has not been strong enough, even in an area where they 00:19:07.768 --> 00:19:11.188 are stronger and are more being listened to than in so many other areas. 00:19:11.188 --> 00:19:16.008 But still, I mean, we got the less than two degrees into the Copenhagen Accord 00:19:16.008 --> 00:19:21.088 from 2009, and their scientists were still warning us against, 00:19:21.168 --> 00:19:23.808 we would really feel climate change by 2020. 00:19:24.008 --> 00:19:32.168 So I don't think it's fair to say that people only reacted when sort of reality kicked in. 00:19:32.908 --> 00:19:37.108 There are also different cultures and traditions. I mean, in Europe, 00:19:37.148 --> 00:19:43.368 we have a tradition for having science-based politics, not just in this area, but in general. 00:19:43.588 --> 00:19:50.188 So there would be an inclination to listen much more to warnings coming from science. 00:19:50.388 --> 00:19:56.768 I mean, all things being equal, that would have a stronger weight in the political 00:19:56.768 --> 00:20:02.948 debate in Europe, for instance, compared to in some other areas. 00:20:02.948 --> 00:20:07.448 I also think, by the way, that for instance, China, they would also do that 00:20:07.448 --> 00:20:11.208 kind of analysis, but they have maybe not had the same interest, 00:20:11.388 --> 00:20:14.908 or they had thought that somebody else should do more and things like that. 00:20:14.948 --> 00:20:18.688 That has been a slightly different kind of discourse and discussion. 00:20:19.288 --> 00:20:23.148 But I think there are systems where it is natural to be science-based, 00:20:23.228 --> 00:20:27.888 and then there are political systems where that does not count as much. 00:20:29.968 --> 00:20:33.948 Andreas? us. Yeah. So thank you, Connie. 00:20:34.028 --> 00:20:38.408 Now, next, I would like to try to invite you into your machine room. 00:20:38.748 --> 00:20:42.788 So, you know, now we have been talking about general features of collaboration 00:20:42.788 --> 00:20:45.968 and situations where it might be more pertinent than needed. 00:20:46.448 --> 00:20:51.208 But you're also someone who has an enormous expertise in actually getting these things to work. 00:20:52.443 --> 00:20:56.183 And would it make sense to talk of a certain toolbox that you have available 00:20:56.183 --> 00:21:01.883 once you enter into a room and you know you need to come out with people being 00:21:01.883 --> 00:21:04.483 able to collaborate in ways that they couldn't do before? 00:21:05.403 --> 00:21:08.583 What's in your toolbox when you're facing a situation like this? 00:21:11.723 --> 00:21:18.503 Well, yeah, first, I think trust is absolutely a key tool. 00:21:18.503 --> 00:21:25.543 You must have sort of built up, it could be personally often, 00:21:25.723 --> 00:21:29.543 but could also be through sort of an institutional thing, we could maybe come 00:21:29.543 --> 00:21:31.943 back to that, but you have to have a certain level of trust, 00:21:32.943 --> 00:21:35.263 that there's not too much suspicion there. 00:21:35.463 --> 00:21:42.183 You know that your counterpart means what he or she says or is serious about 00:21:42.183 --> 00:21:47.083 this, and they know the same about you. So trust is really important. 00:21:47.763 --> 00:21:52.203 To be prepared, that was the thing I mentioned about understanding where your 00:21:52.203 --> 00:21:55.103 counterpart is coming from. What is their core interest? 00:21:55.623 --> 00:21:57.903 What is the debate in their country? 00:21:58.603 --> 00:22:02.863 I mean, it's easy to sit and tell India, now you should do this or that. 00:22:03.023 --> 00:22:06.563 But you also have to understand that, yes, but they still have 300 million people 00:22:06.563 --> 00:22:10.883 without access to electricity, just to take one example. 00:22:11.143 --> 00:22:15.183 So what is on top of your Indian counterpart? That is, how on earth will I get 00:22:15.183 --> 00:22:19.063 electricity to the 300 million citizens who haven't got it yet? 00:22:19.303 --> 00:22:28.223 I mean, to understand that, and then I think to know what you want, 00:22:28.383 --> 00:22:33.283 but also to have reflected on what you can live with. 00:22:34.743 --> 00:22:37.943 That's one of my hobby horses. I think that often, for instance, 00:22:38.143 --> 00:22:46.263 the way Europe does or makes policies is often that Europe, no matter what kind of topic we discuss. 00:22:47.519 --> 00:22:52.979 It takes so long time for the 27 member states to agree a position that they 00:22:52.979 --> 00:22:56.579 are so happy that now they have this position and then they go out in the world 00:22:56.579 --> 00:23:00.619 and then they hope that the rest of the world would subscribe to this position, but surprise, 00:23:00.919 --> 00:23:03.019 they don't. They have their own positions. 00:23:03.559 --> 00:23:09.739 So how can you both have sort of, you know, convened all the interests you need 00:23:09.739 --> 00:23:13.359 on your side, but also have sought the next step? 00:23:13.579 --> 00:23:17.579 Where are we going to land this so that we will not just have You know, 00:23:17.679 --> 00:23:23.479 discussions where people sit with their ideal positions, but they are not really 00:23:23.479 --> 00:23:26.379 inclined to move towards each other. 00:23:26.599 --> 00:23:30.079 And if you take, for instance, international climate conferences, 00:23:30.479 --> 00:23:33.119 that is often the case that there's the posturing. 00:23:33.179 --> 00:23:36.019 People tell you what they would like to see. Fine. 00:23:36.679 --> 00:23:40.679 And that can be good on day one, but it's not so good if that's what they also 00:23:40.679 --> 00:23:47.619 do on day 10 and then day 12. I mean, how to sort of bend your wills towards 00:23:47.619 --> 00:23:51.219 each other and identifying landing zones. 00:23:51.459 --> 00:23:55.559 And I think that those who are good at identifying landing zones, 00:23:55.619 --> 00:24:02.899 to read the room, to read the different positions and identify what could be common language here. 00:24:03.019 --> 00:24:09.719 They will also often be those who can sort of make a real impact on the outcome. 00:24:09.719 --> 00:24:13.559 Do you talk here about the importance of reading the room? 00:24:14.571 --> 00:24:18.611 Is there something about the physical co-presence that matters in these situations? 00:24:18.791 --> 00:24:22.571 There has been a lot of discussions about whether Brexit would have panned out 00:24:22.571 --> 00:24:27.151 in the same way if people had been able to actually meet up rather than meeting on Zoom. 00:24:27.291 --> 00:24:32.551 There is at least some ideas that there is something about being co-located 00:24:32.551 --> 00:24:38.851 in space that might be important in order to really do kind of the last leaps and jumps, 00:24:38.891 --> 00:24:42.111 both in shared understandings and also in coming up with decisions. 00:24:42.371 --> 00:24:43.431 What's your experience of this? 00:24:44.291 --> 00:24:49.011 Well, I'm not sure Brexit is a good example there because I think there were 00:24:49.011 --> 00:24:53.591 four years of Brexit talks before we had the lockdown due to COVID. 00:24:53.691 --> 00:24:58.331 And even during COVID, there were so many face-to-face meetings. 00:24:58.631 --> 00:25:06.431 But in general, I would say Zoom meetings can do a lot and it is useful for 00:25:06.431 --> 00:25:07.651 really, really many things. 00:25:08.131 --> 00:25:14.131 But you cannot read the room. You cannot read the faces. I can see you now. 00:25:14.851 --> 00:25:19.091 I can see sort of the surface of you, but I do not see the small, 00:25:19.231 --> 00:25:22.651 you know, the small glimpses in the eyes, the small, oh, this or that. 00:25:23.131 --> 00:25:29.411 Okay. If you're three in a room, in a Zoom room, it works. If you're seven, maybe it works. 00:25:29.731 --> 00:25:34.791 If you are 10, it's not possible. You cannot read what's really going on. 00:25:34.791 --> 00:25:41.431 So I would say where there are real disagreements, it is really, 00:25:41.631 --> 00:25:47.631 really difficult to chop over these disagreements in a virtual meeting. 00:25:47.951 --> 00:25:50.651 There are so many things virtual meetings can do. 00:25:51.271 --> 00:25:58.071 Exchange of information. You can get an impression of a different person bilaterally. 00:25:58.131 --> 00:26:02.331 You can have small groups working together. But if it's really tough negotiations, 00:26:02.771 --> 00:26:11.011 there I would argue that the limitations are because a lot of unsaid things, a lot of body language. 00:26:12.195 --> 00:26:17.115 Is needed in order not just to sort of, you know, I can zoom in on one and I 00:26:17.115 --> 00:26:22.635 can see his or her face, but I cannot read the room. 00:26:22.775 --> 00:26:31.595 So I cannot identify landing zones that can work for the room as such in a Zoom meeting. 00:26:31.695 --> 00:26:37.335 I would say that is also difficult. And the more disagreement there is, 00:26:37.555 --> 00:26:42.935 the less workable the Zoom tool will be. 00:26:43.415 --> 00:26:48.675 So do you have any particular things or routines you do in order to prepare 00:26:48.675 --> 00:26:51.815 yourself to enter into such a physical contested space? 00:26:52.075 --> 00:26:56.855 Because as you say, it's about being mentally prepared. It's about paying attention to the others. 00:26:57.455 --> 00:27:01.035 It's also about having a particular co-presence that allows for other people 00:27:01.035 --> 00:27:03.735 to see yourself or to read yourself there. 00:27:04.335 --> 00:27:10.395 Have you identified anything you do in order to be as constructive and effective 00:27:10.395 --> 00:27:13.455 as possible once you enter into that concrete space? 00:27:13.995 --> 00:27:18.275 I think that to really listen, 00:27:18.475 --> 00:27:25.555 I mean, not just hear what they say, but really listen, that is important to 00:27:25.555 --> 00:27:31.855 somehow show that you are willing to compromise. 00:27:32.255 --> 00:27:36.235 It depends on the situation. Sometimes you may go into a tough negotiation. 00:27:36.295 --> 00:27:39.055 You have to show that you're not willing to compromise. 00:27:39.415 --> 00:27:47.575 But really to be in a listening mood and to really understand what is not being said. 00:27:48.835 --> 00:27:54.835 That is probably one of the most important tools you have when you're going to a negotiation room. 00:27:56.360 --> 00:27:59.920 And how do you indicate to others that you have listened? Because in a sense, 00:28:00.000 --> 00:28:05.060 if the other person can't see the listening going on, then in a sense it doesn't work. 00:28:05.120 --> 00:28:08.840 Or if you can't see that the other person is listening, then it may not be... 00:28:08.840 --> 00:28:11.140 Are we talking about a physical or a virtual meeting now? 00:28:12.040 --> 00:28:15.500 Ideally in a physical meeting, but it counts for a virtual meeting as well. 00:28:15.560 --> 00:28:19.900 If the point is that trust is important, but actually realizing that the other 00:28:19.900 --> 00:28:23.640 is listening, or vice versa, that the other realizes that you are listening, 00:28:23.640 --> 00:28:27.420 If that's a defining feature, how does that get communicated? 00:28:27.620 --> 00:28:30.820 How does it come about? Well, I would say that in the political field, 00:28:31.000 --> 00:28:40.080 you can normally see when people are deviating from their written scripts. 00:28:40.700 --> 00:28:44.200 Normally, if you're a minister or a commissioner, you will not go into a room 00:28:44.200 --> 00:28:46.960 without having some kind of written preparation. 00:28:47.700 --> 00:28:52.240 But when you have a counterpart, if I sit there with the Chinese minister, 00:28:52.240 --> 00:28:56.600 I mean, you're in no doubt whether do we really listen? 00:28:57.680 --> 00:29:03.060 Are we getting into now where it is interesting? Are we getting into the core 00:29:03.060 --> 00:29:10.640 or are we hiding behind, you know, strange language or really not wanting to go into the core? 00:29:11.220 --> 00:29:16.300 You can read that. But when we talk about international negotiations, 00:29:16.700 --> 00:29:20.520 then it of course also requires that you, 00:29:20.660 --> 00:29:26.960 in your preparations or in your experience, that you also have some understanding 00:29:26.960 --> 00:29:32.420 of what kind of culture the person sitting in front of you has. 00:29:33.314 --> 00:29:36.214 Come from i mean is it the japanese it 00:29:36.214 --> 00:29:39.194 would be one thing is the chinese it's another thing is another 00:29:39.194 --> 00:29:42.594 european it's a sad thing you know what kind 00:29:42.594 --> 00:29:45.554 of sort of how frank can you 00:29:45.554 --> 00:29:53.094 be how polite or not polite can you be uh the person should not lose face you 00:29:53.094 --> 00:29:59.054 know it's important to know all these cultural codes or if you don't know them 00:29:59.054 --> 00:30:01.794 then at least be very much aware that that you don't know them, 00:30:01.834 --> 00:30:03.314 if you understand what I mean. 00:30:04.534 --> 00:30:09.254 Okay. But Conny, now we talk about negotiation. 00:30:10.574 --> 00:30:14.774 And in some sense, you could say, well, the negotiation is at the periphery 00:30:14.774 --> 00:30:21.014 of a collaboration because it is if you want a feeler to create a collaborative 00:30:21.014 --> 00:30:24.714 process with that opponent, right? 00:30:24.774 --> 00:30:28.334 So how does that movement then happen? 00:30:29.654 --> 00:30:41.014 Yeah. How do you approach that? Let's say you want to do some legislation for cars, car standards. 00:30:41.714 --> 00:30:49.494 And the car associations, almost as a definition, they will be against that. 00:30:49.654 --> 00:30:51.294 They will say it's too much. 00:30:51.494 --> 00:30:55.694 It will cost us too dearly. It is technologically impossible. 00:30:56.294 --> 00:30:59.714 You know, you will have all the arguments there. They, of course, 00:30:59.714 --> 00:31:02.214 know that when they say it's technologically impossible, 00:31:02.674 --> 00:31:05.834 they would know that, for instance, if it was when I was a commissioner, 00:31:05.954 --> 00:31:10.794 they would know that the commission services would have a rather clear picture 00:31:10.794 --> 00:31:13.074 of what is feasible and what is not feasible. 00:31:13.794 --> 00:31:20.694 But there it's a play, it's a game. 00:31:21.074 --> 00:31:25.834 But, of course, both parties know that it is in their mutual interest interests 00:31:25.834 --> 00:31:31.814 at a certain point when the respective positions have been made very clear. 00:31:32.634 --> 00:31:38.594 You also have to go into that space where you're trying to collaborate and find solutions together. 00:31:38.954 --> 00:31:42.634 I mean, how can I push them, the politician in that example, 00:31:42.874 --> 00:31:47.774 how can I push them as far as they can go? 00:31:48.614 --> 00:31:52.574 I cannot push them further than they have a mandate for or further than they 00:31:52.574 --> 00:31:58.794 really believe they can go without losing the competition to people from outside Europe or whatever. 00:31:58.994 --> 00:32:01.614 So how can I sort of push them to the maximum? 00:32:01.894 --> 00:32:06.754 And they will, of course, do the opposite. But from a certain point, 00:32:07.114 --> 00:32:11.834 both parties will know that it is in our mutual interest to. 00:32:13.203 --> 00:32:20.223 To work together on this, because they would fear that else some crazy politicians 00:32:20.223 --> 00:32:24.283 will just come up with something in the late night, nightly hour that they have 00:32:24.283 --> 00:32:26.743 no influence on, which they would not like. 00:32:26.743 --> 00:32:32.423 And on the other hand, seen from our perspective, 00:32:32.683 --> 00:32:38.603 if we don't bring them in, we would just have a hell and they can mobilize lots 00:32:38.603 --> 00:32:44.703 of workers and politicians in their regions that get nervous and all that. 00:32:44.703 --> 00:32:54.723 And so I think that in such an example, both will go to sort of the utmost of what they can do. 00:32:54.903 --> 00:33:00.103 And such a negotiation can take a long time, and it's not necessarily solved in one or two meetings. 00:33:00.663 --> 00:33:06.463 But at least I would say in the European tradition, there is also sort of this 00:33:06.463 --> 00:33:10.683 nobody always get it 100% their way. 00:33:11.603 --> 00:33:17.563 It's in the part of our democratic tradition that we know that I have to give 00:33:17.563 --> 00:33:19.623 you some, but you also have to give me some. 00:33:19.783 --> 00:33:26.023 And it's sometimes very much unsaid, but felt. 00:33:27.403 --> 00:33:35.563 When in this collaboration, is it my turn to sort of give you something? 00:33:35.943 --> 00:33:38.763 I mean, it's not not something you can write down, 00:33:39.063 --> 00:33:45.723 but it is just being felt in the room, at least as long as we come from the 00:33:45.723 --> 00:33:47.643 same democratic tradition, 00:33:47.923 --> 00:33:54.743 then there would be sort of a sense of what is a fair way of working together 00:33:54.743 --> 00:33:57.443 on this? Where is the fair deal? 00:33:57.943 --> 00:34:06.423 But then, in your view, are the structures in the European Commission geared 00:34:06.423 --> 00:34:11.203 towards towards building these kinds of collaborative engagements in terms of 00:34:11.203 --> 00:34:12.823 the protocols, how they're structured, 00:34:13.243 --> 00:34:15.403 how they're organized, the communication? 00:34:16.903 --> 00:34:20.243 No, I think it goes for many of our political institutions. 00:34:21.083 --> 00:34:24.443 For instance, climate, which is the area I know best. 00:34:25.243 --> 00:34:33.123 The way our organizations, our institutions, our procedures work. 00:34:34.791 --> 00:34:42.391 Are often much too slow. And I think that that is probably where we are being 00:34:42.391 --> 00:34:44.551 challenged the most in years to come, 00:34:44.671 --> 00:34:49.151 if we're going to deliver on all the nice targets on climate and things like 00:34:49.151 --> 00:34:53.631 that, that we have this, everybody should have a say. 00:34:53.831 --> 00:34:59.171 And, you know, it takes two months to listen to that, and you have a hearing 00:34:59.171 --> 00:35:04.931 there, and that takes so and so many weeks. and it has to go back and forth and back and forth. 00:35:05.311 --> 00:35:14.631 And somehow our systems, our administrations, are not really equipped with the mandates, 00:35:14.891 --> 00:35:20.951 often not equipped with the mandates to go across and to act across the silos. 00:35:21.891 --> 00:35:28.651 Each has their own silo-created mandate, if you will. Here, we need people to 00:35:28.651 --> 00:35:35.071 work together across silos in an expedient and effective manner. 00:35:35.611 --> 00:35:41.151 But do they have the mandate for that? And if they don't, we spend a lot of 00:35:41.151 --> 00:35:46.251 time getting files from here, up there, 00:35:46.331 --> 00:35:49.911 in the silo, down there, and then it can be sent over in the next silo, 00:35:49.911 --> 00:35:52.271 up and down, and then the next, up and down. 00:35:52.271 --> 00:36:04.191 And there it starts to be felt that we cannot move as fast and as urgent as 00:36:04.191 --> 00:36:08.071 the targets that we have set that we want to achieve. 00:36:10.411 --> 00:36:14.891 But you indicate something really important now, right? 00:36:14.951 --> 00:36:20.951 Because this might suggest that in order to support this notion of consensus 00:36:20.951 --> 00:36:24.851 and trust, you pay a price and that price is time. 00:36:25.978 --> 00:36:30.058 Would you see it like that, or do you see it differently? No, I agree. 00:36:30.258 --> 00:36:35.138 A very good example is if you take permitting, it could be for solar or for wind or whatever. 00:36:35.678 --> 00:36:39.478 We hear everybody, and it takes forever. You could take it in Germany. 00:36:39.478 --> 00:36:44.198 I think the average time to get a permitting through is maybe seven years or something like that. 00:36:44.418 --> 00:36:47.358 So it's very democratic. It's very inclusive. 00:36:47.718 --> 00:36:54.838 Everybody can have a say. But in the end, we lose time, and by losing time, 00:36:55.018 --> 00:37:02.278 we also risk losing competitiveness, and we risk losing some of the jobs that 00:37:02.278 --> 00:37:06.878 those people that we want to sort of include in all this are dependent on. 00:37:06.878 --> 00:37:14.138 So we have a real dilemma here, particularly when we compare to other systems. 00:37:14.298 --> 00:37:18.518 Take the Chinese system. They have decided that they want to, 00:37:18.538 --> 00:37:22.018 you know, their five-year plan, they say we want to be world leaders in this 00:37:22.018 --> 00:37:23.798 and that and this and that technology. 00:37:23.798 --> 00:37:29.058 And they throw money into the fields, resources, scientists, 00:37:29.258 --> 00:37:34.398 whatever, into the field, and they do not have to have all these democratic procedures. 00:37:34.398 --> 00:37:40.938 So how in Europe, for instance, where we want to stick to our democratic procedures, 00:37:41.358 --> 00:37:45.658 where we want decisions to have legitimacy. 00:37:46.098 --> 00:37:55.898 How can we take decisions a bit more efficient so they are a bit more fit for purpose? 00:37:55.898 --> 00:38:05.458 And yet still keep the core value of listening to people, having all the elements 00:38:05.458 --> 00:38:08.058 on the table before we take a decision. 00:38:08.498 --> 00:38:15.438 And there I think we have a huge dilemma and a huge democratic challenge in front of us. Right. 00:38:15.838 --> 00:38:20.538 Andreas? So you have been mentioning a few times the need to work across silos 00:38:20.538 --> 00:38:25.378 and the difficulty in, so to say, making sure that each silo doesn't follow 00:38:25.378 --> 00:38:28.458 their own logic, but that they come to commit to a larger perspective. 00:38:29.238 --> 00:38:32.918 Could you maybe reflecting back on a few successes you have had, 00:38:33.078 --> 00:38:37.038 where you succeeded in making things work across silos? 00:38:37.398 --> 00:38:41.758 What did it take to do that? Were there any kind of tricks that made it possible? 00:38:41.878 --> 00:38:46.698 Were there any insights that made it possible to transcend these silo thinkings? 00:38:48.238 --> 00:38:53.238 Well, to take one example, in the midst of the economic crisis, 00:38:53.358 --> 00:38:56.678 the financial crisis in Europe, we actually managed to get all member states 00:38:56.678 --> 00:39:03.198 behind setting a target for 2030 of 40% reductions in Europe. 00:39:03.338 --> 00:39:04.478 That was not a given thing. 00:39:05.098 --> 00:39:09.498 How could we do that at a time where there was a banking crisis, 00:39:09.698 --> 00:39:16.098 a financial crisis, 26 million unemployed people in Europe, and so on and so forth? 00:39:16.698 --> 00:39:22.518 There was a lot of other things on decision-makers' minds. And I think that they're. 00:39:24.736 --> 00:39:31.516 Maybe it's sad to say it, but it is not enough just to come with the science, 00:39:31.536 --> 00:39:34.076 the scientific case for climate, for instance. 00:39:34.896 --> 00:39:41.316 You also have to be able to prove the economic case and the job case. 00:39:42.496 --> 00:39:46.236 And these things have to go hand in hand. Because if you don't, 00:39:46.236 --> 00:39:52.116 if you cannot do that, you cannot convince those with the other portfolios. 00:39:52.116 --> 00:39:59.336 But if you really can put all this together, you can also work with those who 00:39:59.336 --> 00:40:04.876 may be from the outset thought, why should I bother with that? 00:40:05.016 --> 00:40:08.216 But then suddenly they can see, oh, there are co-benefits, oh, 00:40:08.276 --> 00:40:14.956 there are jobs, oh, this makes economic sense, oh, this will make our innovation scale up. 00:40:14.956 --> 00:40:22.276 You know, you have to identify many elements in order to overcome some of the 00:40:22.276 --> 00:40:25.356 silo reluctancy, if you want. 00:40:25.596 --> 00:40:28.456 And I think that was, for instance, what we did there. 00:40:28.576 --> 00:40:32.176 But we had to have also the economic case ready, 00:40:32.296 --> 00:40:39.076 meaning that climate people or environment people who would maybe normally be in their own silo, 00:40:39.076 --> 00:40:47.876 they would also have to have much more economic insight and economic expertise also in-house, 00:40:47.976 --> 00:40:54.156 or they will not succeed in convincing those from the other silos. 00:40:55.156 --> 00:40:59.656 But I guess you could argue that projecting like 20 or 25 years into the future 00:40:59.656 --> 00:41:05.396 at a time when Europe was in big crisis, you know, that it's a little bit... 00:41:06.966 --> 00:41:12.386 It's the arguments for economy and jobs are kind of difficult to really validate that support. 00:41:12.766 --> 00:41:17.226 Wasn't it also a matter of creating kind of a sense of a larger vision or some 00:41:17.226 --> 00:41:19.186 kind of a larger urgency that was needed? 00:41:19.446 --> 00:41:24.026 In other ways, don't you need also kind of a larger narrative that makes it 00:41:24.026 --> 00:41:28.966 possible to unfold all of these things in order to do that kind of transcending the silos? 00:41:29.206 --> 00:41:33.706 Because, you know, no one knows what's going to happen in the job market in 20 or 25 years anyway. 00:41:33.866 --> 00:41:38.826 There's so much uncertainty related to that. So wasn't there an element of somehow 00:41:38.826 --> 00:41:40.946 creating a larger narrative in it too? 00:41:41.506 --> 00:41:46.706 Yes, but I think that if you talk about EU and the EU institutions. 00:41:48.326 --> 00:42:00.366 Since 2000, well, five, six, there has been a general acceptance of the science, 00:42:00.586 --> 00:42:02.626 of the overall narrative, if you want. 00:42:02.626 --> 00:42:06.686 You can go back and you can find all sorts of European leaders saying, 00:42:06.746 --> 00:42:09.906 yes, we must do this. Yes, because of climate. 00:42:10.086 --> 00:42:12.366 Yes, because else this or that would happen. 00:42:12.846 --> 00:42:18.446 Already in 2010, we had our 2050 roadmap. We had the pricing of carbon and emissions 00:42:18.446 --> 00:42:25.066 trading scheme from back in 2006 and 2007 entering into force. 00:42:25.066 --> 00:42:29.686 So I think that that is just something that the urgency was there, 00:42:29.766 --> 00:42:31.346 the narrative was there. 00:42:31.506 --> 00:42:35.846 But what I'm saying is that when you then are in the midst of, 00:42:35.886 --> 00:42:40.966 at that time, an economic crisis or now a COVID crisis and a pandemic, 00:42:41.166 --> 00:42:48.866 then it is that you need also to prove that if you are serious about that agenda, 00:42:48.966 --> 00:42:53.566 that we all agree upon is needed and important. 00:42:53.566 --> 00:42:57.286 Then you must also be able to prove. 00:42:58.261 --> 00:43:04.941 Not only where you want to go, but also how you can get there without harming 00:43:04.941 --> 00:43:08.821 the jobs situation as we go. 00:43:09.061 --> 00:43:14.761 So I think it's more the other way around, because the basic fight to have people 00:43:14.761 --> 00:43:20.261 in Europe or political leaders in Europe accepting that there is an overall 00:43:20.261 --> 00:43:23.461 climate change challenge that we need to address, 00:43:23.681 --> 00:43:26.161 I think that battle was won some time ago. 00:43:26.161 --> 00:43:30.981 Of course, now what happened when, for instance, Ursula von der Leyen was going 00:43:30.981 --> 00:43:34.701 to become the new president of the EU Commission, 00:43:34.921 --> 00:43:44.421 she could not get through that process to land her that job until she had pledged 00:43:44.421 --> 00:43:49.701 to make climate part of the key narrative for Europe. 00:43:49.701 --> 00:43:56.241 So that is a good thing and a strong thing, and that is what they have to deliver on now. 00:43:57.241 --> 00:44:01.581 And in these kind of larger narratives, do you think that hope or fear were 00:44:01.581 --> 00:44:03.221 the more important in shaping it? 00:44:03.241 --> 00:44:07.121 Because again, projecting into the future, it can both be the fear of what might 00:44:07.121 --> 00:44:11.741 happen otherwise, or the hope that if we do this right, we are going to also 00:44:11.741 --> 00:44:14.561 have a competitive advantage relative to others. 00:44:14.661 --> 00:44:16.941 Does it make sense to separate these factors out? 00:44:17.761 --> 00:44:22.761 Well, I basically think you need both. Of course, if you just tell people that 00:44:22.761 --> 00:44:24.601 it's about gloom and doom, then 00:44:24.601 --> 00:44:29.941 there is a part of the population and the citizens you will not control. 00:44:30.867 --> 00:44:34.027 You know, get to open their ears to this kind of messages. 00:44:34.187 --> 00:44:38.167 So it's extremely important that there is also a positive narrative that there 00:44:38.167 --> 00:44:42.947 are solutions that they can see themselves in these solutions and that, 00:44:42.947 --> 00:44:44.807 that the solutions are not just theoretical. 00:44:45.207 --> 00:44:49.847 But it's tangible, something you can see, something that you want to be part of. 00:44:49.947 --> 00:44:56.207 Having said that though, I also do think that it is also needed that people 00:44:56.207 --> 00:44:57.887 understand the urgency. 00:44:57.887 --> 00:45:03.107 I mean, here the time factor is so crucial, 00:45:03.227 --> 00:45:10.007 and you can only get that message across if now and then you also remind people 00:45:10.007 --> 00:45:15.547 of some of the not-so-nice facts that people also have to relate to. 00:45:15.547 --> 00:45:16.847 So I think it's a combination. 00:45:17.147 --> 00:45:23.547 But if you only had the gloom and doom, I think that a portion of the populations 00:45:23.547 --> 00:45:26.367 would say, okay, then let's party while we still can. 00:45:26.587 --> 00:45:31.047 So I think it's extremely important to have both. And that is why right now 00:45:31.047 --> 00:45:36.547 I think that one of the most important things in this collaborative effort that 00:45:36.547 --> 00:45:43.647 should bring us to where we need to go is that business industries come forward 00:45:43.647 --> 00:45:45.467 showing their solutions, 00:45:45.827 --> 00:45:47.847 showing that, wow, 00:45:48.247 --> 00:45:50.867 that's smart. Oh, can we really do that? 00:45:51.027 --> 00:45:54.927 Oh, if we couple two digital solutions, how smart this could be, 00:45:55.007 --> 00:46:00.047 or this, whatever it is, thing or tool or product. 00:46:00.267 --> 00:46:03.247 Ah, that's smart. I want to be part of this. 00:46:03.427 --> 00:46:06.167 I mean, the electric car is a very, very good example. For example, 00:46:06.167 --> 00:46:13.447 when people once have had an electric car, they do not want to go back to an OECD car. 00:46:13.847 --> 00:46:19.687 So to have the solutions out there, to show it, I think that is absolutely key 00:46:19.687 --> 00:46:24.607 to move not the 20% frontrunners, but to carry the rest. 00:46:25.502 --> 00:46:33.482 So, Connie, what you indicated earlier is also this trade-off between expediency, 00:46:33.522 --> 00:46:37.442 time, and maintaining consensus and trust. 00:46:38.502 --> 00:46:42.302 But in some sense, also, if we now take the climate crisis as our example, 00:46:42.422 --> 00:46:48.622 or we can also look at COVID-19, actually, European society is running and accelerating 00:46:48.622 --> 00:46:52.182 towards some really serious obstacles. 00:46:52.182 --> 00:46:56.162 So, in a more negative perspective on that, 00:46:56.342 --> 00:47:03.602 what is our plan B for the collaboration if this very slow process of maintaining 00:47:03.602 --> 00:47:08.202 trust and consensus is just not getting us there? What's plan B? 00:47:09.242 --> 00:47:13.342 Yeah, and that is always a problem because as soon as you start to talk about 00:47:13.342 --> 00:47:18.642 plan B in politics, then you will never, ever have fulfillment of plan A. 00:47:18.642 --> 00:47:24.742 But I think that one place to start is, and you mentioned yourself the pandemic, 00:47:25.122 --> 00:47:33.042 to take some of the courage that many political leaders showed during the pandemic 00:47:33.042 --> 00:47:38.442 and presenting in clear language to people, what is the danger? 00:47:38.702 --> 00:47:41.542 What are we faced with here? What are the solutions? 00:47:42.122 --> 00:47:47.822 Also presenting unpleasant solutions to people. We saw that those who actually 00:47:47.822 --> 00:47:52.522 did so also gained respect from people, broadly speaking. 00:47:54.762 --> 00:47:56.202 So I think that, 00:47:57.478 --> 00:48:01.518 you know, to be straightforward. One of the things that I'm really scared of 00:48:01.518 --> 00:48:06.898 is when policymakers right now are too busy trying to tell people that we can 00:48:06.898 --> 00:48:12.078 make the biggest transformation maybe ever in the history of mankind without 00:48:12.078 --> 00:48:17.118 anybody feeling the same or without it costing anybody anything. 00:48:17.658 --> 00:48:22.318 I think that people look through that. I think a much more straightforward conversation. 00:48:24.758 --> 00:48:30.638 Sorry. sorry, a much more straightforward conversation presenting also some 00:48:30.638 --> 00:48:35.278 of the tough choices here, but to really show political leadership there, 00:48:35.398 --> 00:48:37.598 to get the knowledge out there, people understand. 00:48:38.058 --> 00:48:41.718 People don't believe those policymakers who tell them that, oh, 00:48:41.718 --> 00:48:42.798 you don't have to change anything. 00:48:43.138 --> 00:48:49.858 So it is not trustworthy anyhow, but to be really frank, 00:48:50.078 --> 00:48:56.018 and then I think that talking about collaboration, that as much as we have now 00:48:56.018 --> 00:48:59.258 been discussing and including big business in this conversation, 00:48:59.578 --> 00:49:06.978 I think it's high time to find deliberative ways to include interested citizens 00:49:06.978 --> 00:49:11.518 in this conversation, to have much more deliberative democracy, 00:49:11.778 --> 00:49:14.418 not asking people, what do you want to do with climate? 00:49:14.598 --> 00:49:19.158 How would people have meaningful answers to that? 00:49:19.358 --> 00:49:22.698 But for instance, should it be more expensive to fly or not? 00:49:23.258 --> 00:49:28.138 Should it be cheaper to take the train than to fly? You know, things like that, 00:49:28.298 --> 00:49:36.518 difficult political choices, but real choices, have established ways to include 00:49:36.518 --> 00:49:40.718 interested citizens in that kind of deliberations. 00:49:40.938 --> 00:49:45.578 I think that that would make it much easier five to ten years down the road. 00:49:50.138 --> 00:49:53.358 Now you're muted. You're muted, Paul. Yeah, sorry. 00:49:53.858 --> 00:49:59.978 Sorry, but Connie, what you're declaring is also a view going back to the Enlightenment, right? 00:50:00.038 --> 00:50:04.978 If we give people the knowledge, then they will also do something with that. 00:50:05.158 --> 00:50:07.138 So what you're speaking to are 00:50:07.138 --> 00:50:11.518 sort of the intrinsic properties now of the actors in the collaboration. 00:50:12.178 --> 00:50:16.598 And also earlier, you mentioned the role of empathy and trust. 00:50:16.598 --> 00:50:20.778 So in your perspective, when you walk in the room, for instance, 00:50:20.898 --> 00:50:25.998 think back in any situation you've been in around climate or other topics, 00:50:26.158 --> 00:50:34.558 do you feel that then indeed the sense or almost the drive for collaboration is a given, 00:50:34.738 --> 00:50:38.758 like an intrinsic feature of us as humans? 00:50:39.438 --> 00:50:45.358 Or is that something that you also have to cajole and create and enforce sometimes? 00:50:47.225 --> 00:50:51.745 Well, it's an intrinsic feature in the human being. 00:50:51.965 --> 00:50:54.885 I think scientists would have to tell us about that. 00:50:55.085 --> 00:51:00.325 But I think that in enlightened societies, 00:51:01.105 --> 00:51:07.845 I think that straightforward presentation of the facts and trying to include 00:51:07.845 --> 00:51:13.665 people who want to in the conversation, I think that leads to better results. 00:51:13.665 --> 00:51:20.765 That when you think you can just do it at the top and then hope that people will follow. 00:51:21.045 --> 00:51:27.485 I think also with social media and the digital options we have, 00:51:28.325 --> 00:51:37.765 we should pay more attention to better ways of including people in the conversation. 00:51:38.125 --> 00:51:42.945 And my impression normally is that if you really are frank with people and you 00:51:42.945 --> 00:51:45.385 get the knowledge out there. People are not idiots. 00:51:45.765 --> 00:51:51.825 Then they also understand why you do what you do or why you decide what you decide. 00:51:53.105 --> 00:51:57.965 But I think that it's correct that the really big risk we have also in Europe 00:51:57.965 --> 00:52:04.865 in years to come now, that is an increased polarization, not just because of 00:52:04.865 --> 00:52:07.165 climate. There are many other factors there. 00:52:07.305 --> 00:52:11.605 But climate can sort of push into that direction. 00:52:12.545 --> 00:52:17.145 And I see a huge risk in further polarization. 00:52:18.245 --> 00:52:23.465 But I think that to get knowledge out there, to get facts out there, 00:52:23.525 --> 00:52:30.045 to get straight talk out there, that is a prerequisite for avoiding that. 00:52:30.185 --> 00:52:33.865 And then I think that, for instance, what is very much needed in the climate 00:52:33.865 --> 00:52:35.685 field is to send a price signal. 00:52:35.685 --> 00:52:43.565 So there is a way to accommodate that, namely the way you create the tech system, 00:52:43.845 --> 00:52:49.445 the way you take care of people being fit for the jobs of the future through 00:52:49.445 --> 00:52:51.805 reskilling and upskilling. 00:52:52.045 --> 00:52:58.445 I mean, there are really many things that can be done so that people can see that this is also for me. 00:52:58.565 --> 00:53:04.245 It's not just something that those in power decide, and I'm just a victim of their decision. 00:53:04.245 --> 00:53:07.385 But I was also thinking about the examples you mentioned earlier, 00:53:07.565 --> 00:53:12.065 like as a commissioner, you walk in a room to negotiate with a Chinese minister, 00:53:12.225 --> 00:53:14.745 or you have to negotiate with the car industry. 00:53:15.045 --> 00:53:20.405 When you enter that room, do you assume these people are in this room to collaborate? 00:53:22.892 --> 00:53:25.792 Or not it depends very much 00:53:25.792 --> 00:53:28.692 on the situation i have to say i i have to 00:53:28.692 --> 00:53:34.912 leave here no later than a quarter past but but um it depends on the situation 00:53:34.912 --> 00:53:39.052 of course there would also be situations where you really feel that your counterpart 00:53:39.052 --> 00:53:45.072 is not here to collaborate your counterpart is here to try to prevent uh or 00:53:45.072 --> 00:53:48.352 yeah avoid that something is happening So, 00:53:48.572 --> 00:53:59.752 you cannot always count on that, but normally I think that at least in the political field, 00:53:59.832 --> 00:54:05.512 normally people are there to achieve some kind of outcome, 00:54:05.772 --> 00:54:09.292 some kind of common thing. 00:54:09.292 --> 00:54:14.312 And it can take too long and it can be frustrating. 00:54:15.492 --> 00:54:21.012 But in the end, normally some kind of common sense prevails. 00:54:21.252 --> 00:54:27.372 In the climate field, too slow and too little, too slow for sure. 00:54:28.192 --> 00:54:36.172 But I think that it's important to understand that it takes time also because 00:54:36.172 --> 00:54:38.892 if we talk about international politics, 00:54:39.752 --> 00:54:42.972 different countries have different interests and then 00:54:42.972 --> 00:54:49.092 that takes a long time and effort to overcome that but at a certain point there 00:54:49.092 --> 00:54:55.152 is the recognition that now we all have an interest in trying to move forward 00:54:55.152 --> 00:55:02.052 and often that point of recognition will come more or less at the same time as. 00:55:03.619 --> 00:55:10.999 The economic interest, big business, investors also start to see their interests 00:55:10.999 --> 00:55:14.739 in not holding back, but moving forward. Okay. 00:55:15.039 --> 00:55:19.039 So we have just a few minutes left, Connie, and there's just a few things I 00:55:19.039 --> 00:55:20.799 would like you to reflect on towards the end. 00:55:20.799 --> 00:55:24.999 So in your current position where you sit on boards of Aarhus University, 00:55:25.259 --> 00:55:29.859 of the KR Foundations and of others, you also have the possibility to design 00:55:29.859 --> 00:55:34.459 structures of collaboration by thinking about how should a university be organized, 00:55:34.719 --> 00:55:39.499 by thinking about, you know, which kind of grants to do, what kind of initiatives to launch. 00:55:39.499 --> 00:55:44.399 Launch, it's almost like designing a sphere within which particular types of 00:55:44.399 --> 00:55:45.459 collaborations can happen. 00:55:45.799 --> 00:55:52.819 Could you reflect a little bit on how do you deal with that situation? Let's take an example. 00:55:53.719 --> 00:55:59.719 We have now this Glasgow, we told this Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, 00:56:00.199 --> 00:56:05.839 11 countries signing up to we must go beyond oil and gas. We form an alliance. 00:56:06.059 --> 00:56:08.639 Where did that come from? It did not come out of the blue. 00:56:09.499 --> 00:56:11.999 In KR Foundation, we took the 00:56:11.999 --> 00:56:16.299 initiative some years ago for exactly what turned out to be this alliance. 00:56:17.059 --> 00:56:22.179 We convened a lot of interested philanthropic foundations and others, 00:56:22.319 --> 00:56:24.859 some knowledge people. You know, we convened them. 00:56:25.599 --> 00:56:29.199 So what do we do? We need to go beyond oil and gas. 00:56:29.539 --> 00:56:34.159 How to get something started here? Other foundations chipped in. 00:56:35.799 --> 00:56:39.839 You know, a lot of sort of stakeholders, more or less, you broaden the circle, 00:56:39.939 --> 00:56:41.039 you work with stakeholders. 00:56:41.419 --> 00:56:49.679 And at a certain point, it is right, it is mature to sort of bring it to the political arena. 00:56:50.419 --> 00:56:55.439 And then you identify, could Denmark be interested? Could Costa Rica be interested? 00:56:55.759 --> 00:56:56.999 Could others be interested? 00:56:57.459 --> 00:57:02.359 And there it is. And from now on, it will sort of, you know, be transparent. 00:57:03.169 --> 00:57:08.369 Be working with more and more states that would sign up to this. 00:57:08.509 --> 00:57:11.389 So that's just one example. You start, you see a need, 00:57:11.649 --> 00:57:18.029 and then you start, and then you sort of convene a number of stakeholders around 00:57:18.029 --> 00:57:23.929 a table, and the discussion starts from there, and you make sure you have some 00:57:23.929 --> 00:57:25.529 resources to put into it. 00:57:27.349 --> 00:57:32.369 Sorry. That's just one example. and 00:57:32.369 --> 00:57:36.789 and similarly sorry i mean 00:57:36.789 --> 00:57:40.169 and you also talked about universities that that universities were 00:57:40.169 --> 00:57:44.789 struggling also to be tied up in silos inside disciplines etc so you know are 00:57:44.789 --> 00:57:49.109 the similar things that can be done at a university level to ensure that people 00:57:49.109 --> 00:57:55.229 actually work across disciplines across sectors but there you can try and do 00:57:55.229 --> 00:57:59.429 it by some strategic money being set aside for exactly 00:57:59.629 --> 00:58:02.529 that purpose because money is sometimes a good driver for that. 00:58:02.729 --> 00:58:08.469 So if you say, okay, we really believe that now we have to take new steps into 00:58:08.469 --> 00:58:16.469 some interdisciplinary initiatives and not just the kind of interdisciplinary thing where people, 00:58:16.629 --> 00:58:20.269 you know, some people come with one expertise, another, and another, 00:58:20.469 --> 00:58:23.789 and another, and then they sit there for three hours and then they each go back. 00:58:23.929 --> 00:58:31.569 It's not, to me, it's not truly interdisciplinary. How can you really have different 00:58:31.569 --> 00:58:40.869 strings of knowledge coming together and form new insights? 00:58:41.249 --> 00:58:45.729 Not just that each go back to their own field afterwards, but it really, 00:58:45.789 --> 00:58:50.769 they come with each their component and out of that springs new insights. 00:58:50.769 --> 00:58:54.749 You can do that, for instance, by, as we're doing in Aarhus, 00:58:54.829 --> 00:59:01.429 with some strategic measures saying, okay, if you really want to do that, there is money to be had. 00:59:02.229 --> 00:59:11.389 Another example, I don't know, it's somehow funny that researchers doing a lot 00:59:11.389 --> 00:59:14.109 of research in the field of sustainability, for instance. 00:59:15.277 --> 00:59:22.457 Then suddenly, oh, does that also mean that our own university should sort of be sustainable? 00:59:22.817 --> 00:59:24.977 Should we change the way we travel? 00:59:25.797 --> 00:59:30.417 Should we change the way we attend conferences? Sometimes, yes, 00:59:30.657 --> 00:59:34.617 it's actually not just something that we do research in. 00:59:34.677 --> 00:59:37.017 That's where our biggest impact, of course, can be. 00:59:37.257 --> 00:59:42.877 But we also have a responsibility for being a workspace for thousands of people every day. 00:59:42.877 --> 00:59:48.817 So, there is also there sometimes where people suddenly sat together, 00:59:48.917 --> 00:59:54.237 100, 200 people who wanted to do a sustainability strategy together and be involved in that work, 00:59:54.397 --> 01:00:00.617 where you really, across all sorts of areas at the university, 01:00:01.037 --> 01:00:08.377 have people collaborating on a new way of being a university, if you want. 01:00:08.377 --> 01:00:13.897 Around new diets, new ways of handling things in the canteen, 01:00:13.897 --> 01:00:19.537 new ways of handling the energy consumption or the computers being bought or 01:00:19.537 --> 01:00:23.197 the travel patterns, as I mentioned, or organizing conferences. 01:00:23.677 --> 01:00:29.417 Suddenly, it also comes to you, your place, and you have to work together in 01:00:29.417 --> 01:00:34.437 order to change things rather fast because else it's embarrassing. 01:00:34.437 --> 01:00:41.517 So, Connie, to finish up, we have some rapid-fire questions for you, just two. 01:00:42.677 --> 01:00:49.057 So, do you believe that humans are able to maintain and establish sustainable collaboration? 01:00:50.857 --> 01:00:54.437 Yes, I think we are able. 01:00:55.357 --> 01:01:01.997 And I think it requires structures that are supportive for that. 01:01:01.997 --> 01:01:08.437 And we need to organize ourselves in a way that invites for exactly that. 01:01:09.277 --> 01:01:13.957 It does not come automatically. If you could change one thing in humans by magic, 01:01:14.137 --> 01:01:17.597 what's the one thing you would change to make that happen? 01:01:22.380 --> 01:01:26.420 One thing. You can have two if you want. 01:01:26.780 --> 01:01:32.460 No, but I actually think that it would, I mean, then we are talking about really 01:01:32.460 --> 01:01:38.360 hypothetical things, but when it comes to addressing climate change and our 01:01:38.360 --> 01:01:39.520 sustainability challenges. 01:01:40.720 --> 01:01:50.700 Our inclination to look at our short-term interest is a huge obstacle, a huge barrier. 01:01:51.560 --> 01:01:59.960 I would hope that we would have a better sense of being part of sort of a longer-term 01:01:59.960 --> 01:02:05.520 line where what we would say about sort of having a responsibility also for 01:02:05.520 --> 01:02:09.560 generations to come was not just a nice catchy phrase, 01:02:09.760 --> 01:02:16.240 but that was more embedded in our actual behavior so that we could replace this 01:02:16.240 --> 01:02:21.300 instant fulfillment of my interests and my needs here and now, 01:02:21.460 --> 01:02:27.520 if that could be replaced by a more holistic approach and a longer-term thinking 01:02:27.520 --> 01:02:31.360 about what actually is good for the totality, 01:02:32.440 --> 01:02:36.920 yeah, that would make many things easier in the climate field. Wonderful. 01:02:37.180 --> 01:02:39.540 Conny Hedegaard, thank you very much for this conversation. 01:02:40.700 --> 01:02:45.900 Hi, you listened to one of our podcasts in the series on collaboration produced 01:02:45.900 --> 01:02:48.800 by the Ernst Trommel Forum and the Convergent Science Network. 01:02:49.480 --> 01:02:52.480 You can find more episodes on our website.