Pathways, risks, and uncertainties 263
socio- economic or political concerns, sometimes not directly linked to the
transition pathway.
We also note that there are multiple priorities at stake when discussing
different types of risk. We need to more clearly define: ‘What criteria is being
pushed through and for whom?’ Additionally, stakeholders have uneven influence and power on the transition pathways: some have the ability to influence
the direction of a pathway, while others have little or no say but are most
adversely impacted. We urge a more transparent, inclusive, and comprehensive
risk assessment in transition pathways with a wide range of stakeholders to make
explicit the risks that are unique at the local level but with overarching issues
that are relatable in other contexts.
Table 14.2 Key risks in each country study pathway
Country study
Implementation risk
Consequential risk
Pathways for incumbent large-scale technology systems
Austria – iron and steel
sector
Technology (investment)
• Risk of poor timing for
investment
Policies
• Lack of a co-ordinated
national climate and
energy strategy
• Lack of evidence-based
regulatory framework
• Missing co-ordination of
an integrated European
policy
Socio-economic
• Risk of play-off between
climate mitigation and
social justice
• Risk that the contribution
of behavioural change is
not included
Technology impact
• Stability of grids and
flexibility of energy system
• Lock-in effects
Socio-Economic
• Households bear the main
part of costs
Other
• Risk that resources are not
considered (only energy)
Canada – Athabasca oil
sands in Alberta
Policies and politics
• Political barriers
Socio-economic impact
• Social rejection
Technology impact
• Technology causes landuse change
• Technology causes air and
water pollution
Socio-economic
• Disruption of traditional
ways of living
• Negative health impacts
• Drop in profits,
contraction of the
economy
• Job losses
continued
socio- economic or political concerns, sometimes not directly linked to the
transition pathway.
We also note that there are multiple priorities at stake when discussing
different types of risk. We need to more clearly define: ‘What criteria is being
pushed through and for whom?’ Additionally, stakeholders have uneven influence and power on the transition pathways: some have the ability to influence
the direction of a pathway, while others have little or no say but are most
adversely impacted. We urge a more transparent, inclusive, and comprehensive
risk assessment in transition pathways with a wide range of stakeholders to make
explicit the risks that are unique at the local level but with overarching issues
that are relatable in other contexts.
Table 14.2 Key risks in each country study pathway
Country study
Implementation risk
Consequential risk
Pathways for incumbent large-scale technology systems
Austria – iron and steel
sector
Technology (investment)
• Risk of poor timing for
investment
Policies
• Lack of a co-ordinated
national climate and
energy strategy
• Lack of evidence-based
regulatory framework
• Missing co-ordination of
an integrated European
policy
Socio-economic
• Risk of play-off between
climate mitigation and
social justice
• Risk that the contribution
of behavioural change is
not included
Technology impact
• Stability of grids and
flexibility of energy system
• Lock-in effects
Socio-Economic
• Households bear the main
part of costs
Other
• Risk that resources are not
considered (only energy)
Canada – Athabasca oil
sands in Alberta
Policies and politics
• Political barriers
Socio-economic impact
• Social rejection
Technology impact
• Technology causes landuse change
• Technology causes air and
water pollution
Socio-economic
• Disruption of traditional
ways of living
• Negative health impacts
• Drop in profits,
contraction of the
economy
• Job losses
continued