While renewable energy like solar and wind is rolling out at an incredible speed, the total global consumption of energy is also going up. So far, the growth in total energy consumption has been bigger than the growth in renewables, so global carbon emissions have gone up.

In principle, the global growth in energy use is great news. In many countries where energy consumption is going up, this is driven by population growth or by economic growth. It is a sign that people are living longer and are getting out of poverty. Unsurprisingly, an increasing share of global CO₂ emissions comes from middle-income countries.

Preventing a carbon lock-in from newly-built fossil fuel infrastructure in a just, equitable, and effective way is a climate priority for many people in the effective environmentalism community, because it affects a large amount of future projected emissions. It also presents an opportunity to increase energy access and reduce air pollution.

What we build now, matters a lot

Globally, we will invest tens of trillions of dollars into infrastructure to meet the demand from population growth and economic growth. Many of these infrastructure investments will stay in operation for several decades. For example, a coal-fired power plant that is built now is expected to stay in operation—and therefore keep emitting CO₂—well until 2070. Which infrastructure we build over the next decade will determine how much we’ll emit in total by the end of the century.

If humanity instead builds its future energy infrastructure with solar panels, wind turbines, and nuclear power plants, we can avoid a “carbon lock-in” in which gas and coal power plants continue emitting an unsustainable amount of greenhouse gases. As you can see in the figure of the World Resources Institute below, coal and gas-powered energy infrastructure is typically used for decades and causes much higher greenhouse gas emissions than renewables or nuclear.

Most greenhouse gas emissions between now and the end of this century will not come from Europe and the US. Europe and the US are responsible for more than half of historical carbon emissions, while only making up a very small part of the global population. But when we look at future projected emissions by 2100, only 19% will come from these two regions. This number is even less when you consider that Europe already has climate policy to reduce that number. Instead, China and the “Rest of world” dominate future greenhouse gas emissions because of the construction of new infrastructure.

Importantly, many developing countries and emerging economies will still emit much less by the end of the century than Europe and the United States. But we cannot cope with climate change if all countries with “negligible” emissions do not build clean energy and transport infrastructure. We need to find effective and equitable ways to accelerate the energy transition in low- and middle incomes without affecting these countries’ energy access, financial burden, or autonomy.

While the risk of a carbon lock-in is highest in emerging economies, high-income countries are also building new fossil fuel infrastructure. Most future emissions from planned new infrastructure are from China and India. This isn’t surprising, because both countries have over a billion inhabitants and are growing their economy rapidly. The rest of the list consists mostly of upper-middle income countries, but also some high-income countries. Notably, the United States, Japan, England and Wales, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Russia are still planning major new fossil-fuel power plants.

Types of carbon lock-in

The classic example of carbon lock-in is building new coal power plants. But the risk of carbon lock-in applies to virtually every major sector that produces or consumes energy:

• Power and electricity: The energy sector is a major emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, and fossil fuel-powered power plants stay in operation for 20-45 years. Luckily, there are clean energy sources like renewables, nuclear power, and upcoming clean firm power solutions that can make coal and gas obsolete.

• Industry: Plants for cement, steel, or petrochemicals have a lifetime of several decades (40, 35, and 30 years, respectively). While the world will still need cement, steel, and (some) chemicals, we can reduce the future impacts of these factories by designing them to be low-emissions when being built. (And of course, the world will need less petrochemicals as the energy transition progresses.)

• Buildings: Most buildings stick around for around 80 years, and some are used much longer. If we create new buildings without sustainable construction materials (such as clean cement), good insulation, and clean heating and cooling, we commit ourselves to emissions for heating and cooling for multiple decades.

• Transportation: Planes and ships are built to last for well over 25 years. Developing solutions for clean aviation sooner will avoid a carbon lock-in, because planes and ships we produce for the growing demand of aviation now will continue being used even if new solutions make their way to the market.

(Our expected lifetimes of infrastructure are based on a WRI article.)

Why do countries still build fossil fuel infrastructure?

Even though the costs of renewables have fallen beyond the costs of fossil fuels, in many ways fossil fuels are still an attractive energy source. While renewables are expected to supply most future energy needs, countries might still build fossil fuel infrastructure for the following reasons:

• To provide firm power to balance the intermittency of solar and wind. When there is no sunshine or wind (a “Dunkelflaute”), gas power plants (and over longer periods, also coal) is an attractive energy options because it does not depend on the weather. Gas is also attractive option to balance the short-term variability of solar and wind as it can easily be ramped up or down. Clean firm power sources (geothermal, nuclear, and hydropower) are not always good solutions when the local geography is not suitable, or simply because the costs are too high. Battery storage is not yet affordable at the scale required. 

• To meet the heat requirements of industry. Solar, wind, and other renewables do not produce enough heat to power industries like cement and steel. Alternatives like green hydrogen or biofuels are often either expensive or have other downsides, such as air pollution and ecosystem damage.

• Because they already use gas in other sectors. Gas infrastructure may already exist for the production of (petro)chemicals or fertilizers.

How can we prevent or reverse a carbon lock-in?

There is no straightforward one-size-fits-all solution to avoiding a carbon lock-in. Often, avoiding a carbon lock-in will require local solutions. We also need to increase research to find better ways to avoid a carbon lock-in effectively and equitably.

Some ways to prevent a carbon lock-in are:

• Solving the intermittency problem. If we make renewables, nuclear, or battery storage cheap and feasible solutions to the intermittency of solar and wind, this will make fossil fuels a less attractive energy source. This will also make it easy to shut down existing fossil fuel-based power plants.

• Increase financing for clean energy access from high-income countries to low and middle-income countries. Access to finance is a barrier from green infrastructure. Most export finance from high-income countries is directed to fossil fuel infrastructure, even though clean energy is now cheaper.

• Finding solutions for a clean heavy industry. The heavy industry is a major reason for the continued expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. If we find clean ways to power industries with high heat requirements, we do not need to build as many gas or coal plants.

• Improving energy contracts in emerging economies. In some emerging economies, managing energy contracts is a secretive process. In many cases, the power producers have no incentive to switch to renewables because they can pass the increasing costs of coal onto the government (“cost plus contracts”). This prevents competition and slows down the deployment of clean energy. Making energy contracts public and eliminating “cost plus contracts” can increase the adoption of renewables and reduce energy prices.

• Developing solutions to re-power coal power plants to deliver green energy, such as nuclear. These solutions could potentially be repeatable, fast to develop, and cheaper than building new energy infrastructure.

• Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. To level the playing field for clean energy and storage, governments should not subsidize fossil fuels using taxpayer money.

• Researching new and better solutions. In many ways, we still do not have a clear path to accelerate the energy transition in low- and middle-income countries. We need more research on technical solutions for clean power and better grids, and applied research on how to get solutions implemented.

Fairness and co-benefits

Work to avoid a carbon lock-in often touches upon energy access in the Global South and requires significant investments. That requires a careful consideration of the socio-economic aspects:

• Historical responsibility for climate change: While most future carbon emissions come from low and middle-income countries, Europe and the United States are responsible for more than half of all historical emissions, and were able to get rich by burning fossil fuels. For climate justice, we should expect countries in the Global North to finance the energy transition.

• Energy access: Fossil fuel infrastructure often gets built because it is still the cheapest and easiest energy source. Organisations working on renewable energy in low and middle-income countries need to make sure that their work does not come at the expense of improved energy access.

• Stranded assets: In addition to a carbon lock-in, investments in fossil fuels can also lead to stranded assets. An asset becomes stranded when it (unexpectedly) can no longer make a return because of economic or regulatory reasons. For example, coal and gas infrastructure will become obsolete when clean firm power and storage becomes mainstream. Preventing the construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure also reduces the risk of stranded assets. 

• Air pollution: Burning fossil fuels is a considerable source of air pollution, which is the second largest risk factor for deaths worldwide. Phasing out fossil fuels will also reduce air pollution.

How you can contribute

Donate to high-impact charities

We recommend donating to high-impact charities as one of the most important actions that you can take to make progress on climate action. Charity evaluators like Giving Green and Founders Pledge evaluate climate charities so that your donation makes the largest possible difference.

Some rigorously vetted climate charities working on preventing a carbon lock-in are:

• Energy for Growth Hub works on low-carbon technologies in emerging markets, promotes open and competitive clean energy markets and contracts, and promotes clean energy abundance to end energy poverty. While the Energy for Growth Hub is not recommended as a top nonprofit by either Giving Green or Founders Pledge, both evaluators have previously granted to this organisation.

• Clean Air Task Force (CATF) pushes for changes in technologies and policies needed to get to zero-emissions, and recently expanded their work to Africa and Asia to work on carbon lock-ins. CATF is recommended by both Founders Pledge and Giving Green.

• Other non-profits working on energy innovation, such as Project Innerspace, Future Cleantech Architects, and Opportunity Green. While these organisations do not address carbon lock-in directly, they do work on innovation challenges required to eliminate fossil fuels and are evaluated and recommended by Giving Green. You can explore more climate nonprofits on the EffectiveEnvironmentalism.org website.

Find a high-impact career

The best way in which you can contribute to preventing a carbon lock-in will depend on your own background and location. The ideas below might be helpful starting points:

• If you live in an emerging economy, you can work within the energy sector or the government to find solutions to avoid a carbon lock-in. This career path is especially relevant if you have a background in (energy) engineering, economics, or politics.

• If you live in a high-income country, you can consider a career in transition and development finance to fund the energy transition in emerging economies, and/or fund energy innovation in general.

• Regardless of where you live, you can consider a career in engineering to find solutions to energy challenges.

• You can also leverage resources or attention to this issue by working in, for example, grantmaking, policy, journalism.

Also consider reading our advice for high-impact climate careers for more ideas.

Read more

• What to Know About Carbon Lock-in and How to Avoid It (World Resources Institute)

• How do we stop climate change? (Effektiv Spenden). This article also covers the importance of carbon lock-ins.

• Mechanisms to Prevent Carbon Lock-in in Transition Finance (OECD)

• Supporting a clean energy transition in low and middle-income countries (Giving Green)

We're grateful to Enzia Schnyder for useful feedback on an earlier version of this article. Any mistakes remain ours.