Researcher
Kacper Szulecki
Contactinfo and files
Summary
Kacper Szulecki is a Research Professor in International Climate Governance at NUPI, and a Professor II at the Centre for Development and the Environment (SUM), University of Oslo, where he is a fellow in the Include Centre for socially inclusive energy transitions.
He studied international relations, political sociology, psychology and linguistics in Warsaw, Oslo, Amsterdam, and in Konstanz.
His main research interests are the politics of decarbonization, climate and environmental politics, energy security, EU climate and energy governance, dissent as well as intra-European migration.
He has edited several volumes, including “Energy Security in Europe” (Palgrave 2018) and the "Handbook on European Union Climate Change Policy and Politics" (Edward Elgar 2023), and published five monographs. He has published more than 40 peer-reviewed papers, among others in Nature Energy, Governance, Climate Policy, Journal of European Public Policy, Energy Research and Social Science, and Environmental Politics (Best Article 2018). He has also written over 100 pieces for various newspapers and magazines, and has been interviewed by e.g. CNN, BBC, Al-Jazeera, Duetsche Welle, Die Zeit and the Green European Journal.
Expertise
Education
2012 Dr. rer. soc. in political sociology, University of Konstanz
2008 M.Sc. in International Relations (specialization: Global Environmental Governance), VU Amsterdam
Work Experience
2019 Researcher (professor competence in 2020), Dept of Political Science, UiO
2019 Guest researcher, Department of History and Civilization, EUI Florence
2017 Visiting Fellow, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, EUI Florence
2014-2018 Assistant professor, Dept. of Political Science, University of Oslo
2013 Guest researcher, Dept. of Climate Policy, DIW Berlin 2013-2014 Dahrendorf Fellow, Hertie School of Governance, Berlin
2008-2012 Researcher, Cluster of Excellence "Cultural Foundations of Integration", University of Konstanz
2008 Intern, Institute for Environmental Studies, VU Amsterdam
Aktivitet
Filter
Clear all filtersUna promesa dificil de cumplir ¿Es posible un renacimiento nuclear?
Kan kjernekraft virkelig få den renessansen som mange politikere og industriledere nå lover? Denne artikkelen undersøker utsiktene for en global oppskalering av kjernekraft i lys av klimakrisen, energisikkerhet og ambisiøse internasjonale mål om å tredoble kjernekraftkapasiteten innen 2050. Analysen viser at slike ambisjoner møter betydelige hindringer, blant annet høye kostnader, lange byggetider, finansieringsutfordringer, svekkede leverandørkjeder og mangel på kompetanse. Artikkelen diskuterer også potensialet og begrensningene ved små modulære reaktorer (SMR), samt Russlands dominerende rolle i dagens globale kjernekraftindustri gjennom statsselskapet Rosatom. Hovedargumentet er at et omfattende «kjernekraftcomeback» forutsetter en nærmest revolusjonerende omstilling av politikk, markeder og industri, og at kjernekraft trolig vil møte sterk konkurranse fra stadig billigere fornybar energi. Artikkelen er en invitert faglig kommentar i Vanguardia Dossier, Spanias ledende tidsskrift for internasjonale analyser og samfunnsdebatt, i et spesialnummer om kjernekraftens fremtid.
Populism, Energy Transition, and International Politics
In recent years, populist political forces both in power and in opposition have engaged with energy politics in various ways. This chapter discusses how populists influence the international politics of energy. The departure point is a reflection on the specific relationship between populist ideology and international energy politics, and especially how the key dichotomies of populism play out in this political domain. The chapter first defines populism and its core features, then presents energy politics as an unusual and unique area of public policy, highlighting both its domestic and international dimension. It further emphasises the problem of energy transitions as examples of rapid social change, and their role as a fuel for populist contestation, before moving to the two illustrative case studies of the USA under Donald Trump, and of Poland under the Law and Justice party government.
Energy
Energy is not a political science concept. It originates in physics and describes “a fundamental entity of nature,” best understood as “the capacity for doing work.” Furthermore, as the Encyclopaedia Britannica notes, it “may exist in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other forms,” to which Merriam-Webster dictionary adds that it can be “transferred between parts of a system in the production of physical change within the system.” At the same time, energy is a frequent object of political discussions, due to the fundamental role it plays in modern societies. Energy generates welfare through ceding human physical labor to work done by machines, from home appliances to steelworks; it provides the physical comfort of adequately heated or cooled surroundings; it makes possible the mobility achieved through modern means of transportation. All of these rely on the conversion of energy resources into energy services. Socioeconomic development is correlated with increasingly higher energy consumption (Destek & Sarkodie, 2019). The fundamental and omnipresent nature of energy and its importance for sustaining modern livelihoods are expressed with the often-used metaphor of the “lifeblood of society.” This has political consequences, as access to energy services at a certain level and affordable price is the foundation of social contracts, leading to popular discontent when these are not provided.
The Political Afterlife of a Nuclear Catastrophe: A View from Poland
The Chornobyl catastrophe fractured whatever trust remained in Poland's government after five decades of Communist rule, transforming pharmacy queues and playgrounds into spaces of political awakening. Exploring how environmental catastrophe sparked mass civic mobilisation, Szulecki asks whether these lessons can inform struggles for democratic control over nuclear infrastructure in Europe amid war and climate breakdown.
Delays in nationally determined contributions often reflect credibility efforts and not weakening ambition
This Comment examines why many countries delayed submitting updated Nationally Determined Contributions after the 2023 Global Stocktake. Postponements often reflect efforts to enhance credibility and align pledges with domestic policy, rather than a lack of ambition. Based on compliance reports and case studies, we identify the financial, institutional, technical, political, and strategic factors that contribute to delays. Addressing systemic barriers is essential to restoring momentum and ensuring high‑quality NDCs.
Fashionably or fatally late? exploring NDC procrastination in the UNFCCC
The current global climate change mitigation regime established by the Paris Agreement rests on a “pledge-and-review“ mechanism with the cyclical submission of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to progressively increase climate ambition. Following the 2023 collective review, the so-called Global Stocktake (GST), Parties were required to submit updated NDCs by February 2025. Yet compliance has been strikingly low: only 16 of 198 Parties met the deadline, and even after an extended September cutoff, just 64 submissions were recorded, covering roughly 30% of global emissions. We examine the phenomenon of NDC procrastination – the widespread delay in meeting procedural obligations – and its implications for the climate regime. Drawing on 23 country case studies, compliance reports, and fieldwork at the climate summit in Bonn, we identify four clusters of factors behind delayed submissions. Financial and institutional capacity challenges include resource constraints, reliance on external technical assistance, and complex whole-of-government coordination requirements. Technical and data-related challenges stem from gaps in emissions inventories, modelling expertise, and recalibration needs when baselines shift. Political and governance challenges range from domestic uncertainty (elections, coalition changes) to geopolitical shocks, armed conflict, and instances of ‘green backlash,’ where governments actively obstruct climate policy. Finally, procedural and strategic dynamics encourage states to delay pledges for performative or tactical reasons. While these factors can explain why many parties were late with their submissions, the question of what NDC procrastination means for the future of global climate action is more complex. While NDCs are visibly treated more seriously by many, and considerable resources are channeled into the work on pledges, the scale of non-compliance underscores the fragility of procedural norms. Furthermore, the post-GST round of delayed pledges highlights the tension between detailed, economy-wide pledges aligned with domestic policies and ratcheting up mitigation ambition at a pace needed to tackle dangerous climate change.
The uneven influence of the Global Stocktake on national climate policy and the NDCs
The Global Stocktake (GST), concluded at the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP) in Dubai in 2023, is seen as a central component of the Paris Agreement’s ambition cycle, as it is meant to assess collective global progress, which should inform future Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Many commentators and Parties put significant hope in the Stocktake’s ability to ratchet up ambition in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process. Following the Dubai COP, which resulted in the impressive “Outcome of the global stocktake” (Decision -/CMA.5) spanning almost 200 detailed paragraphs, some Parties expected the GST to become a new impulse for collective efforts to combat climate change. More critical voices, however, expressed unease and concern about “replacing the Paris Agreement with the Global Stocktake” – which meant departing from the nationally determined and diversified approach that was agreed in 2015. This policy brief takes a closer look of the influence on national climate policy and the NDCs.
Theory seminar: Theorising territorial passions
Professor Gerard Toal visits NUPI for this theory seminar on 24 April.
Energy as a tool of statecraft after Ukraine and Gaza
The wars in Ukraine and Gaza have transformed how energy functions as a tool of statecraft, revealing that contemporary energy-related power extends far beyond the manipulation of commodity trade. Direct targeting of electricity systems, fuel infrastructure, and even nuclear power facilities has become a central feature of warfare, exposing the vulnerability of modern, electrified societies. These attacks, combined with intensified forms of economic coercion such as sanctions, price caps, and market reconfiguration, underscore the inadequacy of the traditional “energy weapon” concept, which focuses narrowly on supply disruptions by exporting states. Instead, the new energy security landscape is shaped by interdependence, infrastructure exposure, cyber risk, and shifts triggered by the global energy transition. As decarbonization advances, vulnerabilities migrate from fuels to technologies, value chains, and critical raw materials, generating new geopolitical asymmetries and strategic dependencies. For European policymakers, these developments demand a reconceptualization of energy security that prioritizes systemic resilience, protection of civilian energy infrastructure, and integrated approaches to economic statecraft, defence planning, and climate policy. Understanding energy as both a strategic asset and a potential target is essential for navigating a future in which energy systems are increasingly central to conflict, coercion, and geopolitical competition.