Dr. Marc Ringel, Chairholder of the European Chair on Sustainable Development at Sciences Po, shares insights into the first EIB Climate Survey hackathon that brought together students from Europe and Canada to analyse a rich dataset on climate attitudes and behaviours. In this interview, Ringel explains how the initiative was born, what made it unique, and how it reflects the Chair’s mission to foster rigorous, policy-relevant research on the clean transition. From methodological excellence to actionable findings for policymakers, the hackathon showcased the power of collaborative learning and data-driven thinking.
How did you come up with the idea of this hackathon in the first place?
At first, our idea was to propose a PhD or a master thesis for the data analysis. But this was beyond the point, it would have taken years or months to have a result – and only one analysis. The data is so rich that we wanted fresh eyes on it, different ideas on what to analyse and creativity in combining the data with other datasets. This brought us to the idea of running a hackathon.
Looking back, what made this hackathon a uniquely valuable opportunity for Sciences Po, the students, and the CARE Network—beyond a standard seminar or workshop?
I think the students were thrilled by the opportunity to be the first to work on a dataset that was both comprehensive, challenging and truly up to date for getting policy insights. Bringing in students from our Canadian partner universities with CARE added a transatlantic flavour to the competition.
Any learning from your specific position regarding how to best organise and steer such an exercise?
From our side it was important to get both creative but also scientific sound results. With the support from our colleagues of the Paris School of International Affairs (PSIA) and the School of Public Affairs (EAP), we hired specialist tutors that accompanied the student groups and acted as mentors. I think this helped a lot to guide discussions and support students in their analyses.
How did the Chair’s guidance and the CARE Network’s involvement shape the students’ work – access to data, expert mentorship, or real-world constraints – that elevated the final outputs?
It was a truly collaborative effort by all of us: the colleagues from the EIB and the EIB Institute, we at the Chair and our colleagues from PSIA, EAP and CARE. We co-designed the hackathon in a way that allowed students to grow their capabilities in a framing that was both fun, but also scientifically robust. I think it was a beautiful project that demonstrated the mission of the Chair: To act as a platform for delivering and staging analyses on the clean transition.
From your perspective, what distinguishes the students’ outputs in terms of methodological rigour and clarity?
All student groups went the extra mile. They have shown an outstanding capacity to pick relevant topics, extract the relevant questions from the survey and combine this with secondary data from other scientific datasets such as Eurostat. Especially this combination of datasets asks for methodological rigour and the students have proven that they are up to it. And: It rendered findings of real value added for policymakers.
If a policymaker asked you which takeaways from the hackathon are the most relevant or actionable for EU countries, what would you tell them?
There are quite a few takeaways. Let me pick three that form the basis for many further recommendations:
1. Climate action and trust in government and media plurality go hand in hand. This is the basis, and we overlook it only too often. Strengthening our democracies is a win-win also for climate policies.
2. Government spending on climate policies has a signalling effect: The visibility of infrastructure investments encourages necessary individual and private sector behaviour changes. We have seen this with the rollout of solar panels or e-mobility and we can use this effect for other areas of transition, say energy efficiency or clean hydrogen.
3. It is about transparency and fairness. People are willing to take on extra efforts like taxation, if there is clear information on what is done with the money and if it is safeguarded that everyone is sharing the effort.