Decarbonization means no longer burning fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses (GHG gases) into the atmosphere. It means finding technology to take the existing carbon out of the atmosphere to reduce the planet’s warming effects. Decarbonization will mean stopping climate change, which is extremely important for the livelihood of humanity.
In my research on decarbonization, I have read about many barriers stalling the process. This post explores what I see as the top 3 reasons that decarbonization is so essential.
The top 3 reasons why decarbonization is complicated:
- Uncertainty in future systems and future world
- No systems planning in design, systems don’t interact properly with each other
- Lack of constructive communication leads to tension, conflict and distrust
Uncertainty in future systems and future world
There are a lot of different pathways that we coil take from where we are now to decarbonization. Because the world is so global and carbon dependent in every area, the transition needs to happen simultaneously across the board. This is because nothing works in isolation; if you’re designing hydrogen as a fuel for heating homes and vehicles, not only do you need a supply chain in place to get it to you at a reasonable price, but also one to physically have the right fuel in the proper form at the right price.
Still, we don’t know which fuels will be used for what. We are still researching, and lots of industries are waiting on developments in other research areas before there is a clear direction that they see for themselves as helping.
Carbon capture
Suppose we look at electricity and carbon capture. We know we will have a considerable amount of decarbonization of the electricity systems, especially with the increased load of electrified transport and electrified heating (for example, heat pumps). We know that we are unlikely to hit the targets for this and that there might be too much pollution for the planet to deal with. So in parallel, we are also designing mechanisms for carbon capture. That means taking carbon out of the atmosphere.
There are two main potential strategies for this; BECCs, and DAC. BECCS is the process of planting trees to harvest and make biomass from and then capturing the c02 fumes in the process. DAC is a system that uses electricity- and does what it stands for direct air capture of carbon dioxide.
The first system uses no electricity; the second system uses a massive amount of electricity. If we use the second system, the demand for electricity will be so much higher. This might mean rethinking the energy supply. Where before nuclear might have been unwanted and able to be unnecessary the electricity demand added from DAC, might make nuclear energy entirely necessary. Maybe the first system needed only small boosts from hydrogen fuel. But the second system could them necessitate mass-scale hydrogen production. That pollutes a lot of co2 in the process, but is the only way to cope with that electrical demand.
Uncertainty
So many parts of the system are independent of each other, but they all rely on each other. The uncertainty means that investors don’t know where to put their money, which stops good financial schemes from springing up. It also means a country might be more hesitant in where to throw huge loads of training and expertise for upskilling its workforce. These are barriers to the overall decarbonization.
No systems planning in design, systems don’t interact properly with each other
When we plan whale systems, we can consider all areas of a system and how they work together to complement each other. Sometimes, the right solutions for emission reduction, doesn’t suit the culture. There are many places around the world that cook on wood fires. This is bad for health, but although in the west we know that electric hob would be healthier and better for the planet there are lots of reason it might not be appropriate. Firstly, often there are different values in different cultures. There is no western value to an induction hob, but fires often have spiritual significance and their value is far higher than just a tool for cooking. Also, the food people cook, needs different techniques, inductions hobs aren’t as immediately hot, so food like chapatis, don’t cook them same on them. Of course, the cultural value of food is hugely significant.
There are other cultural examples. In some countries, individual ownership or community ownership of things is very significant. There has been considerable opposition to solar panels in some pacific island countries because they sit on individual roofs. Culturally there is a strong belief that everything in a community should be shared. So they are not favoured. On the other side of the spectrum, some culture value individual personal space. The concept of car sharing was not met favourably in Denmark where a car is like an extension of a house; a car holds value as personal space not just transportation. These differences, if known, can easily be designed for, but full systems knowledge is needed to anticipate these sorts of reaction to change.
Carbon emissions targets
Systems thinking and whole systems design are really important when there are global costs and sanctions such as are really important when there are international costs and sanctions such as emissions for carbon. Countries have a carbon emissions target, and if they over pollute, they will have to pay (or it will look bad for them).
Only the biggest emission industries are materials extractions, manufacturing and heavy industry. We have very little of that in the UK, so we don’t count all the emissions of the things we produce worldwide. We only count what we make here. This massively skews the emissions; we effectively dump our carbon on lower-income countries. There needs to be strong regulation at borders to prevent this. And, there need to be systems that work for everyone. These systems should include all parts of the supply chain and the politicians in white collars running the countries from far away. Carbon pricing regulation is very unfit for purpose.
Unfit regulation
Systems dynamics is also needed when regulation is unfit for purpose. When we design with the anticipation of what will happen in the future, we can save time and money by preplanning. For example, in the case of home solar batteries or electric vehicles, the government can incentivise buying at first, until so many people buy that the price is driven down and becomes affordable for everyone else to buy. But that’s a straightforward example.
There are a lot of laws that are currently not well suited to new, renewable technologies. For example, when the rules don’t match the technology, people can be taxed twice in charging and discharging their home battery systems. OR time incentives, like when you provide electricity or use electricity, aren’t in place. Without the right incentives in place, the total value of the new technologies can’t be realised. They might be met with a very lukewarm reception when there is a lot of potential. The regulation is just not up to date to make use of it.
Lack of constructive communication leads to tension, conflict and distrust
Politicians need people to be on board with her planning. There is soften massive distrust between communities who are experiencing change (dues to climate change, or due to coal power stations being shut down), who feel unheard and is respected by the politicians who sit, often remotely and are thought to have no understanding of the problems on the ground.
There is often also distrust for politicians because we believe they don’t care about our lives as citizens. Given the amount of chat boat global politics, economy, finance, industry and the like, it’s easy to feel that they govern remotely and don’t have empathy for the people. That is why effective communication is so important.
Tension in global vs local solutions
There is often a trade-off between the best for the global environment and the best for the local environment. The global climate might have the biggest target of reducing c02 emissions. One good way to do that is to build massive, taught running trains lines across a country as an alternative to flying or driving. However, this can mess with the local water stores for local environments. It can destroy forests to make space, trees and wildlife destruction can follow. A train line cutting through a country can create a block for wildlife to move around and breed freely.
Also, land-use change. If you’re changing peatlands to the ground that can support mass pylons of structure, can have inherently high co2 emissions. SO there is a trade-off. Do we make a 5% less good/tic tech rail system for a 20% better local environmental impact? To debate these issues and come to solid outcomes supported by all, there needs to be effective communication.
Why is decarbonization complicated?
So, these are the three main reasons that I think underpin why decarbonization can be so complicated. As a world, we are making strides. The strides are unprecedented in terms of global politics but only minor in reversing the carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere.
You may also enjoy these posts:
