Amplifying “Keep It in the Ground” First-Movers: Toward a Comparative Framework

Abstract

This article offers a framework for analyzing and extending the recent wave of national "keep it in the ground" (KIIG) bans on fossil fuel exploration and production. We situate this discussion in new theoretical work on decarbonization acceleration and then present an overview of KIIG movement and policy development. Next, drawing on the burgeoning supply side climate policy literature, we outline major barriers to constraining fossil fuel development, then focus on identifying conditions most conducive for KIIG policy. These include locally-rooted campaigns, the development of a pro-KIIG constituency that is horizontally dense and vertically integrated, resonant message framing, and support by well-placed norm entrepreneurs. We argue that early national efforts to keep fossil fuels in the ground demark a critical juncture in global climate policy. Understanding the trajectory of these bans is a first step in extending these initiatives as part of the pathway to carbon neutrality by 2050.

Designing the mid‐transition: A review of medium‐term challenges for coordinated decarbonization in the United States

“…We note that these issues are likely to manifest differently across countries with different planning, regulatory, and industry ownership contexts than the United States (Blondeel & Van de Graaf, 2018; Carter & McKenzie, 2020). The global nature of the fossil energy system, however, suggests that issues of unlearning in high capital intensity industries with meaningful international private sector participation, even for state‐owned companies (de Graaff, 2012; Karl, 1999), will be widely experienced.…”

The geopolitics of energy system transformation: A review

“…But 'developing countries' do not always face incumbent technologies and companies and through 'leapfrogging' can avoid carbon lock in (Seto et al, 2016, p. 443;Szabó et al, 2013;Unruh & Carrillo-Hermosilla, 2006). Accordingly, some activists now explicitly target fossil fuel infrastructure and supply through 'keep it in the ground' campaigns, demands for moratoria or permanent bans for new projects (Benedikter et al, 2016;Blondeel & Van de Graaf, 2018;Carter & McKenzie, 2020;Temper et al, 2020). This supply-side activism is best exemplified by the global campaign for a 'fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty' , designed after the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (fossilfueltreaty.org, 2021; Newell & Simms, 2020b).…”

Approaches to energy transitions: Carbon pricing, managed decline, and/or green new deal?

“…Since the late 2000s, a growing chorus of academics and movements have been suggesting that wholescale energy transitions, on a timeline and carbon budget consistent with maintaining a habitable planet, require a managed decline of fossil fuel production. Building on decades of community resistance movements to fossil fuel extraction and nongovernmental research and advocacy (Carter & McKenzie, 2020), academics are now calling for policies that restrict the supply of fossil fuels and support renewable energy transitions (Erickson, Lazarus, & Piggot, 2018; Frumhoff, Heede, & Oreskes, 2015; Green & Denniss, 2018; Muttitt, 2016; Muttitt & Kartha, 2020; Paul, Santos Skandier, & Renzy, 2020; Piggot, Erickson, van Asselt, & Lazarus, 2018). Importantly, contributors to this approach do not reject demand‐side policies outright, but they do argue that green capital approaches alone have proven vastly insufficient to meet the scale and scope of the climate challenge ahead of us.…”

“…Exacting costs on fossil fuel industries through enhanced regulations and supply taxes and restricting the supply of fossil fuels should also increase the price of fossil fuels, which conventional economics suggests will discourage consumption. Since 2017, France, Belize, Denmark, New Zealand, and Ireland have all implemented bans on oil and/or gas exploration or production and Spain and Germany have banned coal mining (Carter & McKenzie, 2020). Erickson et al.…”