While climate change has not traditionally been a subject of major theoretical concerns in the social sciences, developments in recent years, driven by policy ambitions to decarbonisation, have opened up the discourse to social science enquiry. In the process, theoretical developments are moving away from Actor-Network theory (Latour, 2005), Innovation theory (Hinnells and Boardman 2008), Transition theory (Jeroen and Van de Burgh, 2008) and converging towards a broadly speaking ‘socio-technical’ framing of energy issues (Anable, J. et al. 2010; Geels 2005a, 2005b; Geels and scot, 2007), which challenges scientific–rational accounts of technological change and diffusion that still dominate in policy circles. Approaches based on a socio-technical reading of technological change offer valuable insights into how to conceptualize the transition towards more sustainable energy futures and the embedding of new technologies into the existing energy system. Although, this theory can be accused of arming policy makers in formulating 'top-down' policy on transition to low energy consumption (or low carbon emission), without looking at how decarbonisation is understood by the household and the willingness of individual households to change their lifestyles to low energy consumption (or low carbon emission).

References

Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the social. An introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Hinnells, M and Boardman, B. 2008. Market transformation: Innovation theory and Practice, in Foxon et al. 2008. Innovation for a Low carbon economy: economic, Institutional and Management approaches. Cheltenham, Gloucester: Edward Elgar Press

Jeroen, C.J and Van den Burgh (eds.). 2008. Managing Transition to Renewable Energy: Theory and Practices from Local, regional and Macro perspectives. Cheltenham, Gloucester: Edward Elgar Press

Anable, J. et al. 2010. Modelling transport energy demand: A socio-technical approach. Energy Policy, Vol. 7(3):1-22

Geels F, 2005a. ‘Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective’ Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 72: 681-696

Geels F, 2005b. Technological Transitions and System Innovations: A Co-evolutionary and Socio- technical Analysis. Cheltenham, Gloucester: Edward Elgar Press

Geels F, Schot J, 2007. ``Typology of transition pathways in socio-technical systems'' Research Policy, Vol. 36: 399-417

good

Molly, One approach I utilize with my undergraduate and some grad students is to invite them to better understand some aspects of social psychology and specifically self-efficacy theory as elaborated by Bandura (1997). The idea is to help citizens and decision-makers at the local or municipal level to see personal change as a developmental sequence in which they enhance their sense of self-efficacy to make the desired change. They first must truly believe they possess the means to make the changes (in this case to a lower carbon life style), they then must have an accessible social reference group with which to gauge their own progress toward the goal. There also must be actual companions on this journey so that people can encourage each other in making the change, and there must be opportunities for self and outside assessment of how well one is doing, along with specific steps to move beyond perceived obstacles to the next phase of the beneficial change. What I like about teaching this model is that it mimics how parents teach children about daily life matters and, as well, some epigenetic-based learning theory (Wilson, 1998) which posits deep capacity for such change as part of the evolved human adaptive response. If someone believes she has within her the capacity to make a change that benefits both her own life and the life of the larger community, the likelihood of a successful outcome rises. Also, as we are social (cooperative) creatures, having others with which to make these life changes is a real boost to success. Finally, decision-makers are human beings who live in real communities and are subject to the same social learning process as outlined above. So my approach is to help students arrange, in their respective communities, to try to involve both decision-makers and citizens in the same efficacy activities.

I wonder whether this is a theoretical or a practical problem. I assume you mean the "research needs of policy makers" rather than the policy needs, at least this is how I interpret your first paragraph.

Energy use is not my area, but I assume that part of the policy problem is that it is unclear who is responsible for what and at which level of the system (global, national, regional, local). I am sorry if this sound profane, but I think a stakeholder analysis could be a starting point, focusing on questions such as which level should address which part of the policy problem to develop policy. This way, it is perhaps easier to link the research needs to the policy problem and the interventions with which the problem could be addressed. I would also think that there is a normative and an empirical dimension to this, i.e. there is a difference between what policy-makers think is important to know and what the research community thinks policy-makers should be interested in. To study this empirically, perhaps a Delphi exercise could be useful, which could involve policy-makers at different levels and in different sectors (it is unlikely to be only about energy use, but also housing, health, education etc.). This way you could contribute to the networking of policy communities, i.e. add some action to your research (or research to your action if this is your priority).

I feel that scientists should try to keep away from politics, and politicians should not need to delve too deeply into science. The fact of the matter is that there is plenty of incontrovertible scientific evidence of anthropogenic atmospheric tampering eg: the CO2 concentration will double this century. Given that this is (still) the only known habitable world in the universe, and science cannot deal with anthropic questions that are best handled by philosophers and theologians. The political question should therefore be one based on ethics, not science.

Regarding the atmospheric sciences, unfortunately there are plenty of uncertainties. Water vapor, for example, produces 60% of the greenhouse effect [1], while the conditions for the initiation of condensation (cooling) is not understood [2]. We only have a couple of (very crude) tools and techniques for measuring the concentration and state of water and aerosols in the atmosphere. If scientists must get political, it is to win funding for the development of atmospheric observation technologies to change this embarrassing state of affairs.

[1] Kiehl, J. T. and Trenberth, K. E. (1997). Earths annual global mean energy budget. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc, pages 197–208.

[2] Girolamo, P. D., Behrendt, A., Kiemle, C., Wulfmeyer, V., Bauer, H., Summa, D., Drnbrack, A.,and Ehret, G. (2008). Simulation of satellite water vapour lidar measurements: Performance assessment under real atmospheric conditions. Remote Sensing Data Assimilation Special Issue. Remote Sensing of Environment, 112(4):1552 – 1568.