German hard coal production ended in 2018, following the termination of subsidies. This paper looks at 60 years of continuous decline of an industry that employed more than 600,000 people, through a case study comparing Germany's two largest hard coal mining areas (Ruhr area and Saarland). Although predominantly economic drivers underlay the transitions, both provide valuable lessons for upcoming coal phase-outs induced by stricter climate policies, including beyond Germany.The analysis identifies the main qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the two regions. It then discusses policy instruments implemented to guide the transition, including measures for the conservation of coal production, regional economic reorientation, and the easing of the transition's social impacts. The success of these policies is evaluated using economic, social, and geographical indicators that were developed within three interdisciplinary research projects running from 2016 to 2019.A key lesson from the examined case studies is the importance of combining not only policies addressing unemployment and the attraction of new energy corporations and investments, but also measures improving infrastructure, education, research facilities and soft location factors. Protecting a declining industry for decades caused increased transition costs compared to an earlier phase-out. Economic reorientation and changing regional identities have proven most difficult in the past. However, the German example illustrates that the complexity of the challenges of a transition can be mastered if city, regional, and national governments and institutions cooperate in a polycentric approach. Key policy insights. A faster and more pro-active hard coal mining phase-out in Germany would have been much less expensive and paved the way for new industries . A just and in-time transition needs to: ○ be jointly managed in a polycentric approach by city, regional, national, and international governments and institutions.○ combine climate, energy, social, and structural policies, whilst recognizing both local specifics and global connections.○ consider long-term effects, external independent advice apart from the incumbent regime and beyond-border thinking, while aiming to diversify the economy and enabling broad stakeholder participation. ○ address unemployment, the economy, and the energy system, as well as measures to improve infrastructure, universities, research facilities, and soft location factors.

No abstract

espite growing concerns about the negative impacts of natural gas, its production and consumption experienced a steep growth until the start of the COVID-19 pandemic 1 . Consequently, CO 2 emissions related to natural gas grew by 2.6% per year between 2009 and 2018 2 . Continuing investments in the natural gas infrastructure were justified by promoting them as beneficial for the transition to renewable energy sources and by presenting natural gas as a climate-friendly alternative to coal and oil [3][4][5] . Globally, a massive expansion of natural gas infrastructure is underway: almost 500 GW of natural gas-fired power plants are planned or under construction 6 . Meanwhile, new liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals with a capacity of 635 million tonnes of natural gas per year 7 as well as LNG export terminals with a capacity of 700 million tonnes per year are under development 7 . These figures are likely to increase in the future, as a new geopolitical order has been created after Russia entered war with Ukraine. The European Union is now going to great lengths to become independent of Russian gas supplies, which still accounted for more than 40% of the total gas imports to the European Union by February 2022. Germany is responding to this new situation with a draft law that approves up to 11 LNG terminals (seven offshore and four onshore units) under accelerated permitting procedures; these terminals can import fossil natural gas until 2043 8 . Although these expansion plans will create new material realities, political and scientific controversy is growing as to whether the use of natural gas and the related infrastructure should be expanded. In light of climate protection goals, and the fact that natural gas itself is one of the biggest causes of climate change, questions now arise as to whether a rapid decline in natural gas use might be necessary, instead of expansion.In this Perspective, we argue why the expansion of natural gas infrastructure hinders a renewable energy future and why the natural gas 'bridge' narrative is misleading. Our aim is to stimulate critical discussion by challenging commonly held assumptions on natural gas. We highlight that the climate impact of natural gas has previously been underestimated and that new insights about this are not sufficiently incorporated into energy analyses. At the same time, the bridge narrative is problematic. Meanwhile, investments in natural gas make it harder to achieve climate targets due to lock-ins, and carry high economic risks. Based on these arguments, we put forth five recommendations to stimulate debate on the role of natural gas in decarbonization processes.

Highlights The UK’s and Germany’s coal phase-out pathways diverge in timing and measures. Different powers of actor groups contribute to diverging trends in UK and Germany. Influential German coal corporations and unions slow down coal’s decline. Energy security concerns, domestic mining and economic dependence create resistance. Reducing the influence incumbents have on policy making might enable coal phase-out.