Carbon Lock-in and the Limits of Green Growth
Carbon Lock-in and the Limits of Green Growth
The notion of “green growth”—economic growth that is environmentally sustainable—has become a cornerstone of global climate policy. Institutions like the World Bank, OECD, and UNDP promote climate-compatible development strategies that aim to reduce carbon emissions while sustaining economic expansion. However, this article argues that green growth often fails to address structural dependencies on fossil fuel infrastructures, financial systems geared toward short-term returns, and socio-political regimes invested in extractive development. These entrenched systems produce what scholars call “carbon lock-in,” making transformative change exceedingly difficult. In response, we explore alternative approaches that prioritize ecological sufficiency and systemic change over efficiency-based mitigation strategies.
Carbon lock-in refers to the self-reinforcing mechanisms—technological, institutional, and behavioral—that maintain high-carbon development pathways. Unruh (2000) first coined the term to describe how fossil fuel-based infrastructures become entrenched due to increasing returns to scale, policy inertia, and vested interests. Modern economies are organized around oil, coal, and natural gas, from transportation networks to energy grids, industrial systems, and urban forms. These infrastructures are not only physically embedded but also politically and economically protected, making rapid decarbonization structurally constrained.
Green growth posits that economic output can be decoupled from environmental harm through technological efficiency and market-based mechanisms. However, empirical data shows that absolute decoupling (i.e., reducing total emissions while growing GDP) remains rare and often temporary. Jackson (2009) and Hickel & Kallis (2019) argue that efficiency gains are frequently offset by rebound effects, where increased productivity leads to greater resource consumption elsewhere. Moreover, green growth narratives often ignore global inequality, whereby wealthier nations outsource emissions to lower-income countries through global supply chains. This obscures the structural drivers of ecological degradation and reinforces neo-colonial resource dependencies.
Despite leading the world in renewable energy investment, China continues to expand its coal capacity. Local governments and state-owned enterprises prioritize short-term economic targets and employment stability, sustaining coal-intensive industrial zones. This institutional inertia illustrates the tension between national climate goals and subnational growth imperatives. India’s rapidly urbanizing regions face rising energy demands. Government initiatives like Smart Cities and Make in India promote infrastructure expansion without fully integrating low-carbon alternatives. Investment flows often favor centralized fossil-fuel-based power over decentralized renewables, reinforcing carbon-intensive development pathways. Many African nations rely on fossil fuel exports and extractive industries for GDP and foreign currency reserves. International development finance, while increasingly climate-sensitive, often supports large-scale infrastructure projects that extend fossil fuel dependency. For example, oil pipelines and coal plants continue to be financed under the banner of energy security and economic growth.
In contrast to green growth, ecological sufficiency emphasizes reducing overall consumption and restructuring economic systems to operate within planetary boundaries. This requires not just technological innovation but socio-political transformation. Degrowth, steady-state economics, and buen vivir offer diverse alternatives rooted in well-being, equity, and ecological integrity. These models stress collective provisioning, shorter supply chains, and democratized resource governance.
Real decarbonization requires disrupting carbon lock-in through targeted regulatory interventions, public investment in low-carbon infrastructures, and participatory governance. Carbon pricing alone is insufficient without accompanying measures that address the structural roots of fossil fuel dependency. This includes dismantling subsidies, supporting worker transitions, and aligning trade, finance, and energy policies with climate goals.
References:
Unruh, G. C. (2000). Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 28(12), 817-830.
Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity Without Growth. Earthscan.
Hickel, J., & Kallis, G. (2019). Is green growth possible? New Political Economy, 25(4), 469–486.
Dave Ji
