14 Transition to a Zero-Carbon Society

Key Concepts

In this chapter we will:

• Explore a potential transition to net zero-carbon society
• Identify human, social, and soft infrastructures as the bottlenecks

14.1 Introduction

Since the late 1980s, climate change has been on the political agenda in many countries. The New York Times headlined on June 24 1988 that “Global Warming Has Begun, Experts Tell Senate”, Times magazine awarded Earth the planet of the year in 1989. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) started in 1988 and published their first reports in 1990.

By that time the science was well enough established to know that action needed to be taken. If we look at the scenarios published in 1990, they explored different pathways to transition to a less carbon intensive economy (Figure 14.1). Only the Accelerated Policies Scenario would result in a global temperature increase of less than 2 degrees Celsius by 2100.

We have also included in Figure 14.1 the actual historical emissions, and it is remarkable that those are just above even the high emission scenario of the IPCC! It is remarkable since by the 1990s there was already sufficient knowledge about climate change to know that emissions had to be reduced significantly, and the issue had gained international political attention. Despite good intentions, emissions have grown more than anticipated for a even the worst case scenario.

At the moment of writing this chapter several decades after these events, there is now a lot of attention being paid to a transition to a net zero carbon society. We will discuss the possibilities and challenges for such a scenario from a coupled infrastructure systems perspective. The reason for such a transition is to avoid global temperature rising to more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, which is considered the tipping point to irreversible effects from global warming such as ice sheet and permafrost melting and Amazon rainforest destabilization.

In Figure 14.2 we show the scenario for fossil fuel emissions that is needed to avoid dangerous levels of climate change. Since it is recognized that those emission scenarios cannot be reached by emission reductions only, current scenarios also include options to extract CO2 from the atmosphere by large scale tree planting or carbon capture and storage of actual emissions, for example from bio fuel based energy generation. This is why we discuss net emissions where one takes into account both the emissions and the negative emission technologies to counter the actual emissions.

14.2 The problem of scale

One of the ultimate problems faced by governance bodies is the overuse of the carbon assimilation capacity of the atmosphere and the resulting global climate change. There are many uncertainties regarding the specifics of the consequences, and experienced weather changes people experience will likely be quite diverse and vary geographically. To reduce the extent of climate change we need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses substantially. Since the gasses remain in the atmosphere for years, it does not matter where emissions have taken place. Therefore, to have a measurable impact, emissions need to be reduced at a global level.

Since the early 1990s, several international negotiations have taken place to develop agreements to reduce emissions. In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was created, which had as its aim to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” In 1992, CO2 concentration was 356 ppmv. At the time of the writing of this chapter, the concentration has increased to 419 ppmv. In fact, every few years new treaties are signed with ambitious plans to reduce emissions, but none have had a measurable impact.

Why is the problem of climate change so difficult to solve? Emission reduction at the global level requires that we not use cheap available fossil fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas but, rather, use alternative energy sources and reduce our overall energy use. This will require major technological innovations and behavior change, which may affect both economic growth and our well-being. Should a country like the U.S. that has historically emitted the most greenhouse gasses make a bigger contribution to the solution compared to other countries? Will we allow countries like India and China to grow their emissions in the coming years since their emissions are low in per capita terms compared to other developed nations and because these countries are relatively less developed? On what ethical basis could we prohibit some Chinese families from enjoying a private car when such is allowed in other countries? Countries like the Maldives will disappear in the coming decades due to the rising sea level and other consequences of climatic change. Who will take care of the climate refugees? What will happen if countries do not do what they promised? Can we enforce the rules?

As you can see there is no simple solution to the greenhouse gas emission problem. Instead of giving up and continuing with business as usual, we can explore the problem from a polycentric perspective. There are many actors around the world who want to make a difference. There are states, cities, universities, and towns that have committed themselves to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For example C40 is a network of megacities who are committed to implementing practical solutions to reduce emissions and create a sustainable future for their citizens. Many of these local actors are driven by the fact that their efforts to reduce emissions also contribute to solving other problems such as local air pollution and the cost of energy use.

Such “climate clubs” have the benefit of starting with actors who are motivated. Participants who want to join opt in and must agree with the rules of the club. Clubs can then set examples of solutions and exchange lessons learned from their local attempts to implement solutions.

14.3 The transition to zero carbon infrastructure

Figure 14.2 shows a dramatic change in historical trends and illustrates what might be possible and what challenges we face. A transition to a low carbon economy will require fundamental changes in our society in all factors of life, from our diet to our transportation, housing, and occupations. This will require major challenges in different types of infrastructure. In this section we will explore for each type of infrastructure some of those challenges and opportunities.

Hard infrastructure:

Hard infrastructure relates to greenhouse gas emissions via the generation of energy, production of cement, the technology to grow and process food, the physical traffic infrastructure, etc. There are many new technological options available to reduce our carbon footprint varying from non-carbon energy production systems like solar, wind and biofuels, electric transportation, meat alternatives, retrofitting housing to improve insulation, low carbon options to produce cement, etc.

A major focus in recent decades has been to find technological solutions to reduce emissions, but this alone will not be sufficient to achieve a transition. Our current physical infrastructure of roads, energy and water depends on decisions made more than 100 years ago, such as the standardization of currents we use to transport electricity. Although low carbon alternatives are available, a fundamental change in the physical infrastructure requires new ways of approaching infrastructure such as using micro-grids, electric vehicles, alternative low-water use sanitation options, etc. Such a transition requires a behavioral and institutional change too.

Even if we adopt a lot of these new technologies, each solution has consequences too. Electric vehicles use energy, which could, in fact, be fossil fuels if fossil fuels are used to generate electricity. Electric vehicles use a lot of minerals and potentially polluting batteries. Wind energy impacts bird populations, hydroelectric power impacts water availability and displaces peoples, and going vegan will still generate CO2 emissions. Whatever technological solution we adopt, it will not be sufficient to address the bigger challenge, our high consumption lifestyles that are increasingly being adopted by a growing global population.

Soft infrastructure:

To stimulate adoption of new technologies and behavioral change among households, businesses and organizations, new regulations and incentives are needed. Often policies are focused on setting standards or provide price incentives (subsidies and taxes). Price incentives can be implemented quickly, but raising taxes will not get you votes and might be politically a challenge. Changing standards is a long-term challenge and the business sector would provide objections to the costs such changes will bring with it. For example, a change in fuel standards for cars requires car companies who do not meet the new standards to adjust their product and this leads to extra costs.

Perhaps the main challenge in changing the software infrastructure to address CO2 emission reductions is the need for an international coordinated effort. Although the need for a transition is acknowledged in international treaties and promises are made to reduce emissions, in practice nations generally do not comply with those proposed intentions. The main reason is that there is no accepted authority who could enforce international agreements. Most nations are sovereign, meaning that there is one centralized government that has the power to govern a specific geographic area. International enforcement of agreements will conflict with this sovereignty and thus international agreements are basically voluntary commitments. Given the commons dilemma nature of emission reductions, there is reluctance to change societies to become less materialistic.

Natural infrastructure:

Natural infrastructure will be impacted in different ways in a potential transition. Planting trees could contribute to carbon storage, and thus would be a way to generate negative emissions to meet the policy goals. Other types of farming that improves soil health & soil carbon storage via regenerative grazing, could make a contribution to negative carbon emissions.

The main challenge for the natural infrastructure is to deal with the unavoidable changes that are going to happen already and continue to happen, such extreme weather events, forest fires, sea level rise, droughts, and a reduction of biodiversity. To maintain desirable natural infrastructure functions, adaptation will be needed. This could mean changes in crop varieties, to cope with less water, improve reforestation to improve resilience of soils to rainfall events, and improve conservation corridors to improve resilience of species for changing habitats.

Human infrastructure:

Do we know what actions to take? Do people have sufficient knowledge about the climate crisis and do they know what actions to take? A large portion of the population does not identify climate change as real or something to worry about (Leiserowitz et al., 2021). Recommended behavioral changes decrease motivation of personal behavioral change (Palm et al., 2020). This is unfortunate since Dietz et al. (2006) demonstrated that a direct emission reduction of 7% could have been achieved without significant impact on human welfare. Even if people are intend to change their behavior, they may not do so. Think about the many New Year resolutions of doing more exercise and losing weight that are not met.

Knowledge about the problem is not the same as accepting the majority view and the consequences for behavioral change. Perhaps this is caused by the implications of behavioral change for people’s lifestyle as well as the ease of ignoring the climate change problem, “Après nous, le déluge” (French for “After me, the deluge” meaning “Ruin, if you like, when we are dead and gone”)

Not only do we need changes in our consumer behavior, we also will need a change in skills needed to facilitate the transition. There is a demand for workforce in non-fossil fuel energy systems, alternative food systems, better insulated houses and changing transportation systems. To have this workforce available in the coming years, those individuals need to be trained now. We will also change the insurance system, since probabilities of weather related events are changing, preventing the insurance industry from having a sustainable business model by continuing business as usual.

Social infrastructure:

An important constraint in deriving a behavioral change are existing social norms about lifestyle, the role of government, science and the existence of climate change. If an individual would like to adopt a carbon neutral lifestyle, will this be supported by their friends, family and community? Social pressures to conform to social norms can also be an accelerator for change as happened with the reduction of smoking cigarettes (Nyborg et al. (2016).

To derive a fundamental socio-economic transition might be disruptive to communities and the way a behavioral change is stimulated is critical. In individualistic cultures like the USA, imposing behavioral change can backfire (Palm et al., 2020), while in collectivist cultures such as China, a top down persuasion could be effective in changing social norms.

Perhaps the biggest challenge is the huge demand for coordination and conflict resolution at different levels to implement a transition. A transition will lead to changes in locations where what will be done, and thus require changes in zoning and permits. This typically requires local inputs, and generates delays in the implementation of projects. So many changes will be needed in the way we live, work, organize, and produce, it is difficult to imagine how this would be possible without conflicts in society. The COVID-19 pandemic provided an example of a relatively simple problem, an infectious disease that could impact everyone’s life, and the disruptive period to cope with the pandemic. Disagreements on how to prevent the spread, to implement a solution via vaccinations, are just initial signs that a just transition to a net zero carbon economy could expect many challenges once implementations will reveal different perspectives at the local and national levels.

14.4 Challenges to changing infrastructure

Change in hard infrastructure is slow. For example, bridges and sewer lines are designed to last 100 years or more, and coal plants and nuclear power plants more than 35 years. A natural replacement of infrastructure will therefore last decades. A more rapid transition will require the destruction and retrofitting of existing infrastructure.

All types of infrastructure are characterized by the build up and maintenance of the capacity of the infrastructure. Since there are limited resources, trade-offs have to be made which efforts to put in which kind of infrastructure. So far, governments at multiple levels have invested in changes in potential new hard infrastructure, but have not invested in creating momentum to implement a transformation of the actual infrastructure. To do this will require aligning a sufficient proportion of humanity behind the goals of a transformation in order for humanity to invest an enormous effort to coordinate such a transition.

A transformation in hard infrastructure requires the coordination on designs where and when infrastructure is to be placed, what new standards to adopt, and how to train the workforce to create, use and maintain new infrastructure. In democratic societies this would lead to negotiations between different special interest groups on zoning conflicts, standards and curricula. Even if people are motivated, it is a humongous task.

The current polarization in society and ineffective national governments, as highlighted by the response to the recent COVID-19 pandemic, indicates we may have underinvested especially in social infrastructure. The conundrum for a just transition is the need for a rapid change but this cannot happen in a way that gives everyone a voice and people will accept the changes that are proposed to be implemented.

Although we should strive for decarbonization of our society, we have to prepare for a society with dangerous climate change. This may require hard and natural infrastructure to be able to cope with more weather extremes, humans and communities to learn to cope with living in a different climate with more heat waves and forest fires, and adjust insurance and migration policies to cope with the consequences of climate change.

14.5 Critical reflections

In this chapter we explore the desired transition to a net zero carbon economy. Although the need for this transition is widely recognized and technological solutions are available, it is difficult to see such a transition would be possible given the high demand on human, social and soft infrastructure.

14.6 Make yourself think

1. Do you know how your electricity company generates the electricity you are using? And does your electricity company plan to change their practices?

2. What need to happen to reduce the carbon footprint of your household, company and town?

14.7 References

Dietz,, T., G.T. Gardner, J. Gilligan, P.C. Stern and M.P. Vandenbergh (2006) Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106 (44): 18452-18456.

Leiserowitz, A., C. Roser-Renouf, J. Marlon and E. Maibach (2021) Global Warming’s Six Americas: a review and recommendations for climate change communication. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 42, 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.04.007

Nyborg, K., J.M. Anderies, A. Dannenberg, T. Lindahl, C. Schill, M. Schlüter, W.N. Adger, K.J. Arrow, S. Barrett, S. Carpenter, et al. (2016) Social norms as solutions, Science 354: 42-43

Palm, R., T. Bolsen, and J.T. Kingsland (2020, “Don’t Tell me what to Do”: Resistance to Climate Change Messages Suggesting Behavior Changes, Weather, Climate and Society 12(4): 827-835, doi:10.1175/wcas-d-19-0141.1

Rogelj, J., O. Geden, A. Cowie & A. Reisinger (2021). Three ways to improve net-zero emissions targets. Nature 591(7850): 365-3.