Successful decarbonization pathways represent the holy grail of achievements for the climate actors and stakeholders involved in the most disheveled climate-related questions. Decarbonization pathways effectively represent a means to an end, whereby the arrival point is comparatively more favorable, in all aspects, to the starting point. In concrete terms (pun-intended), studies assessing the potential of biodegradable materials, namely mycelium as a substitute for carbon intensive commodities like cement, can lay the foundation (again, intended) for a decarbonization pathway in the construction industry.
The specifics of a particular pathway are determined by the very industry said pathway is designed to improve. At the very least, if we apply similar theories to different industries that emit a lot of carbon, it can start discussions on how to work together and achieve the best results on a large scale. An achievable goal is for these pathways to serve as vehicles and conduits that are trusted to yield specific and desirable outcomes.
Week after week, contributors of the Decarb Digest present a conundrum to readers that addresses decarbonization pathways in various capacities.
So far, our writings have examined the environment in which we expect decarbonization pathways to bear fruit. Specifically, we evaluated the tenacity of international cooperation in the wake of an evolving international system. In so doing, we assessed whether sustainable partnerships and robust alliances can be formed and sustained in a climate governed by geopolitical tensions, and we detected a form of institutional paralysis despite widespread assertions that collective action is a key instrument in achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs). We have also identified individual drivers to decarbonization initiatives and assessed their role in paving decarbonization pathways. For example, our piece on critical minerals inquired on the parameters needed to support the development of clean technologies, and implored stakeholders to balance economic prosperity with environmental and social responsibility. These two pieces separately found two important things needed for reducing carbon emissions: a tangible thing that could become a developed product, and a good environment to do it in.
Key stakeholders consistently present their versions of decarbonization pathways into policy circles, graduate class seminars, discussion forums, and more, in the hopes of contributing to a unified solution. Yet, the challenge lies in successfully pairing a tangible to its conducive environment.
In this respect, recent international treaties share a common kryptonite; their pathways have repeatedly encountered geopolitical resistance. For instance, the pathways enshrined in the Kyoto Protocol (2005) were discredited by the non-participation of the world’s major carbon emitters, namely China, India, and the United States. Similarly, the promising momentum of the Paris Agreement (2015) was cut short by the United States’ withdrawal, among other factors. Aforementioned examples mark two high profile instances in which pathway proposals have been met with fierce opposition, without forgetting the most recent Conference of the Parties (COP) 27, whose proposed ambitions were also met with disappointing reactions.
That said, we cannot help but remain attentive to the next COP editions, and patiently, yet nervously, await for (what we hope will be) groundbreaking takeaways. Likewise, the next official publication of the nationally distributed contributions (NDCs) in 2025 will be met with grueling anticipation as we wait to scrutinize, praise, and scold the over- and underachievers of this five-year period. Our dedication to identifying the right (or correct) pathways that may trump even the most ferocious beasts this current international system has to offer, is a testament of our desire to progress and develop sustainably.
This approach also supposes that there is such a thing as a right or correct pathway; it assumes that we, as practitioners, key actors, students, and - you guessed it - concerned inhabitants, have anticipated the negative effects of pathway traffic, specifically the paralyzing effects of traffic on existing pathways. In our quest to remedy the world’s most pressing issues, we must assure not to create more in the process.
Successful decarbonization pathways represent the holy grail of achievements for the climate actors and stakeholders involved in the most disheveled climate-related questions. Decarbonization pathways effectively represent a means to an end, whereby the arrival point is comparatively more favorable, in all aspects, to the starting point. In concrete terms (pun-intended), studies assessing the potential of biodegradable materials, namely mycelium as a substitute for carbon intensive commodities like cement, can lay the foundation (again, intended) for a decarbonization pathway in the construction industry.
The specifics of a particular pathway are determined by the very industry said pathway is designed to improve. At the very least, if we apply similar theories to different industries that emit a lot of carbon, it can start discussions on how to work together and achieve the best results on a large scale. An achievable goal is for these pathways to serve as vehicles and conduits that are trusted to yield specific and desirable outcomes.
Week after week, contributors of the Decarb Digest present a conundrum to readers that addresses decarbonization pathways in various capacities.
So far, our writings have examined the environment in which we expect decarbonization pathways to bear fruit. Specifically, we evaluated the tenacity of international cooperation in the wake of an evolving international system. In so doing, we assessed whether sustainable partnerships and robust alliances can be formed and sustained in a climate governed by geopolitical tensions, and we detected a form of institutional paralysis despite widespread assertions that collective action is a key instrument in achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs). We have also identified individual drivers to decarbonization initiatives and assessed their role in paving decarbonization pathways. For example, our piece on critical minerals inquired on the parameters needed to support the development of clean technologies, and implored stakeholders to balance economic prosperity with environmental and social responsibility. These two pieces separately found two important things needed for reducing carbon emissions: a tangible thing that could become a developed product, and a good environment to do it in.
Key stakeholders consistently present their versions of decarbonization pathways into policy circles, graduate class seminars, discussion forums, and more, in the hopes of contributing to a unified solution. Yet, the challenge lies in successfully pairing a tangible to its conducive environment.
In this respect, recent international treaties share a common kryptonite; their pathways have repeatedly encountered geopolitical resistance. For instance, the pathways enshrined in the Kyoto Protocol (2005) were discredited by the non-participation of the world’s major carbon emitters, namely China, India, and the United States. Similarly, the promising momentum of the Paris Agreement (2015) was cut short by the United States’ withdrawal, among other factors. Aforementioned examples mark two high profile instances in which pathway proposals have been met with fierce opposition, without forgetting the most recent Conference of the Parties (COP) 27, whose proposed ambitions were also met with disappointing reactions.
That said, we cannot help but remain attentive to the next COP editions, and patiently, yet nervously, await for (what we hope will be) groundbreaking takeaways. Likewise, the next official publication of the nationally distributed contributions (NDCs) in 2025 will be met with grueling anticipation as we wait to scrutinize, praise, and scold the over- and underachievers of this five-year period. Our dedication to identifying the right (or correct) pathways that may trump even the most ferocious beasts this current international system has to offer, is a testament of our desire to progress and develop sustainably.
This approach also supposes that there is such a thing as a right or correct pathway; it assumes that we, as practitioners, key actors, students, and - you guessed it - concerned inhabitants, have anticipated the negative effects of pathway traffic, specifically the paralyzing effects of traffic on existing pathways. In our quest to remedy the world’s most pressing issues, we must assure not to create more in the process.
Comments