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.

Keywords:

• Climate policy
• decarbonization
• energy governance
• fossil fuels
• supply-side policy

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the support of Nadine Fladd as well as for comments received from participants at the Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities 2019 conference sessions where we presented a draft of this work, with special thanks to Amy Janzwood and Kate Neville. We also thank the three anonymous reviewers and the editor for their guidance.

Notes

1 This aligns with analysis of Powering Past Coal Alliance membership that found countries were most likely to join if they did not have a strong coal sector (Blondeel, Van de Graaf, and Haesbrouck 2020).

2 As early as a decade prior, industry actors were also aware of the need to limit extraction to mitigate climate change, leaving as much as 80% of reserves in the ground (Song, Banerjee, and Hasemeyer 2015).

3 Note that in 2013 Ecuador urged the UNFCCC to account for “net avoided emissions” and provide international financing to compensate developing countries for leaving fossil fuels in the ground (as in Ecuador’s Yasuní National Park); however, this mechanism was not formally implemented (República de Ecuador 2011).

4 Although this coalition is concerned largely with coal-based electricity generation rather than extraction explicitly, it indicates a rhetorical shift aligned with more explicit KIIG movements and policies.

5 Bernstein and Hoffmann (2019) describe the “fractal” nature of the carbon trap, noting parallel forms of fossil fuel entrenchment at multiple scales.

Additional information

Funding

We

acknowledge the support of a Balsillie School of International Affairs Seed Grant, as well as of the Corporate Mapping Project and an Insight Development Grant, both funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.