Pathways, risks, and uncertainties 261
The complexities of risks and uncertainties in transition
pathways
The starting point for each low- carbon transition pathway were technologies,
while the point of reference for the risk assessment were the policies (or policy
choices) that enabled a certain pathway based on that technology. From the literature and initial stakeholder engagement, we found that two fundamental but
related ideas about risks associated with low- carbon policies existed, which are
part of scientific and public discourses in the context of climate change mitigation: risks as barriers to policy implementation and risks as consequences from
implementing policies and supporting certain technologies. Each of the risks identified changes its character and meaning once we give up policy as the reference
point for implementation and consequence: For example, a lack of investment,
which may be a barrier to policy implementation, can in turn be a negative consequence of bad communication of policy elsewhere. Even more complicated,
then, is the specification of subcategories, in our case political, policy, social,
environmental, economic, and technological risks. These categories are common
and feel intuitive, but they also are not clearly distinct from one another. Indeed,
most risks fit several categories or cascade across these categories. For example,
what is first only an economic problem, such as high upfront or maintenance
costs, is something that is then passed on to consumers, affecting them differently
based on their wealth, education, etc. – hence, it becomes an issue of social equality; or it is passed on to the environment, potentially increasing pollution in one
place to reduce costs elsewhere. For our work, it turned out that in some instances
the categories were well applied, whereas in others they were replaced with more
fitting categories. Ultimately, categories are necessary to provide structure to the
discussion, which is what their main purpose is, and can remain if we do not put
higher hopes in them.
In the particular context of discussing decarbonisation policies, stakeholders
tend to see implementation risks first and consequential risks only if prompted.
Moreover, they frequently frame risk in economic terms, i.e. with respect to
costs and investment needs. Environmental risks receive attention more because
it has become an established category. Social aspects are relevant from an implementation perspective but are rarely considered in terms of consequences,
potentially, because they are often a second- or third- order consequence rather
than a direct result of a low- carbon transition. Chile and Indonesia were exceptions to this rule. Technological risks in terms of safety hazards were not explicitly touched on in most cases, even in the case of nuclear power.
Conclusions
In decarbonising their economies, countries of the world face a considerable
challenge – even more so in light of the Paris Agreement and revelations of
the 1.5°C IPCC Special Report. For this, they need low- carbon transition
pathways which are based on: identified low- carbon technology options;
The complexities of risks and uncertainties in transition
pathways
The starting point for each low- carbon transition pathway were technologies,
while the point of reference for the risk assessment were the policies (or policy
choices) that enabled a certain pathway based on that technology. From the literature and initial stakeholder engagement, we found that two fundamental but
related ideas about risks associated with low- carbon policies existed, which are
part of scientific and public discourses in the context of climate change mitigation: risks as barriers to policy implementation and risks as consequences from
implementing policies and supporting certain technologies. Each of the risks identified changes its character and meaning once we give up policy as the reference
point for implementation and consequence: For example, a lack of investment,
which may be a barrier to policy implementation, can in turn be a negative consequence of bad communication of policy elsewhere. Even more complicated,
then, is the specification of subcategories, in our case political, policy, social,
environmental, economic, and technological risks. These categories are common
and feel intuitive, but they also are not clearly distinct from one another. Indeed,
most risks fit several categories or cascade across these categories. For example,
what is first only an economic problem, such as high upfront or maintenance
costs, is something that is then passed on to consumers, affecting them differently
based on their wealth, education, etc. – hence, it becomes an issue of social equality; or it is passed on to the environment, potentially increasing pollution in one
place to reduce costs elsewhere. For our work, it turned out that in some instances
the categories were well applied, whereas in others they were replaced with more
fitting categories. Ultimately, categories are necessary to provide structure to the
discussion, which is what their main purpose is, and can remain if we do not put
higher hopes in them.
In the particular context of discussing decarbonisation policies, stakeholders
tend to see implementation risks first and consequential risks only if prompted.
Moreover, they frequently frame risk in economic terms, i.e. with respect to
costs and investment needs. Environmental risks receive attention more because
it has become an established category. Social aspects are relevant from an implementation perspective but are rarely considered in terms of consequences,
potentially, because they are often a second- or third- order consequence rather
than a direct result of a low- carbon transition. Chile and Indonesia were exceptions to this rule. Technological risks in terms of safety hazards were not explicitly touched on in most cases, even in the case of nuclear power.
Conclusions
In decarbonising their economies, countries of the world face a considerable
challenge – even more so in light of the Paris Agreement and revelations of
the 1.5°C IPCC Special Report. For this, they need low- carbon transition
pathways which are based on: identified low- carbon technology options;