Carbon Lock-In: Types, Causes, and Policy Implications

Abstract

Existing technologies, institutions, and behavioral norms together act to constrain the rate and magnitude of carbon emissions reductions in the coming decades. The inertia of carbon emissions due to such mutually reinforcing physical, economic, and social constraints is referred to as carbon lock-in. Carbon lock-in is a special case of path dependency, which is common in the evolution of complex systems. However, carbon lock-in is particularly prone to entrenchment given the large capital costs, long infrastructure lifetimes, and interrelationships between the socioeconomic and technical systems involved. Further, the urgency of efforts to avoid dangerous climate change exacerbates the liability of even small lock-in risks. Although carbon lock-in has been recognized for years, efforts to characterize the types and causes of carbon lock-in, or to quantitatively assess and evaluate its policy implications, have been limited and scattered across a number of different disciplines. This systematic review of the literature synthesizes what is known about the types and causes of carbon lock-in, including the scale, magnitude, and longevity of the effects, and policy implications. We identify three main types of carbon lock-in and describe how they coevolve: (a) infrastructural and technological, (b) institutional, and (c) behavioral. Although each type of lock-in has its own set of processes, all three are tightly intertwined and contribute to the inertia of carbon emissions. We outline the conditions, opportunities, and strategies for fostering transitions toward less-carbon-intensive emissions trajectories. We conclude by proposing a carbon lock-in research agenda that can help bridge the gaps between science, knowledge, and policy-making.

Demand-side approaches for limiting global warming to 1.5 °C

“…Building codes are also addressed by Wachsmuth and Duscha (2018), who demonstrate plausible national emission reductions based on the assumption that both new buildings and retrofits meet the highest available thermal-efficiency standards. Consistent with the available literature (Lucon et al 2014;Seto et al 2016;Ürge-Vorsatz et al 2013), the authors argue that stricter building codes in the near term are a necessary condition to avoid carbon lock-in in the sector. This, in turn, is consistent with Kuramochi et al (2018) who identify various key benchmarks to limit warming to 1.5°C, including: higher renovation rates (5% in 2020) and all new builds to be fossil-free and near-zero energy in 2020.…”

Targeted emission reductions from global super-polluting power plant units

“…In addition, there are still substantial disparities between the mean emission intensities in developed and developing countries (Supplementary Table 2), underscoring the potential of efforts to strengthen international collaboration and technology transfer to decrease the global impacts of air pollution 48,49 and accelerate the transition to 'clean' and/or non-fossil sources of power in developing countries. In turn, such progress could avoid further 'lock-in' of fossil energy technologies in both developing and developed economies 50,51 .…”

The potential contribution of disruptive low-carbon innovations to 1.5 °C climate mitigation

“…Disruptive innovations are typically brought to market by new entrants who challenge mainstream service providers. The political economic power and vested interests of incumbent firms, particularly those with interests in fossil fuels, are considered a major source of stability or 'carbon lock-in' in current systems (Unruh 2000;Seto et al 2016). Consumers attracted to DLCIs can undermine the business models on which this stability rests.…”