Explore the vast range of titles available.

In many places, the electricity sector is transitioning towards greater share of renewable energy technologies. In the initial phase of the transition, a primary concern for research and policy was to establish renewables as technically and economically viable options. Today, the situation is different: renewables are diffusing rapidly in many electricity grids, thereby generating major changes for existing technologies, organizations and infrastructures. In this new phase of the energy transition, we do not just witness an acceleration of earlier transition dynamics, but also qualitatively new phenomena. These include a complex interaction of multiple technologies, the decline of established business models and technologies, intensified economic and political struggles of key actors such as utility companies and industry associations, and major challenges for the overall functioning and performance of the electricity sector (for example, when integrating renewables). Drawing on a transition studies perspective, this paper compares the two phases and discusses implications for research and policymaking. The energy transition has been alternatively characterized as a gradual transformation, a technological disruption or a systemic change. This Perspective argues that the transition is entering a new phase where it has unique characteristics, and research and policy can no longer treat it as a gradual transformation or mere disruption.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, governments around the world are mobilizing unprecedented public resources to mitigate economic collapse. However, these new programs run the risk of paying insufficient attention to the multiple sustainability crises we face. Climate change, in particular, threatens the very basis for continued human prosperity and requires an equal, if not greater, societal mobilization. In this policy brief, we argue that the response to the coronavirus outbreak also offers an opportunity to advance the climate agenda. Indeed, given that we have scarce resources at our disposal, it is essential that we synergize such efforts. We propose that this can be accomplished in two primary ways: (1) harnessing the disruptive forces of the COVID-19 pandemic to accelerate the decline of carbon-intensive industries, technologies, and practices, and (2) leveraging responses to drive low-carbon innovation. From these two strategies, we outline five principles of \"sustainability transition policy\" to serve as a guide during these challenging times.

Non-technical summaryAccelerated decarbonization of academic conferences is necessary and urgent. Despite the window of opportunity that COVID-19 created for rethinking conferences, there is a risk of slipping back into old habits now that restrictions are lifted. This commentary reports on recent experiences with a unique, sustainable approach to academic conferencing involving an international partnership and hub model across three continents. There is a need to continue to experiment with and implement new modes of sustainable academic conferencing.Technical summaryIn response to increasing demands to move away from carbon-intensive academic conferences, and a need to address social justice issues, the author-team designed, implemented, and experimented with a new conference model. Three key-design choices informed the model. First, instead of the common single-host-single-location approach, we established a partnership between three universities across three continents. Second, we adopted a hub model of three online conference days, followed by three non-hybrid, in-person only conference days. Third, we sought to accommodate global participation by organizing each of the online conference days during daylight hours in the respective time zones. We find that the model promotes less air travel and improved global south participation. Our approach adds to a growing number of experiments with new modes of academic conferencing in a world that is facing climate and inequality crises.Social media summaryDecarbonizing academic conferences is necessary and urgent. This commentary reveals experiences with a hub-based format.

Grand sustainability challenges span multiple sectors and fields of policymaking. Novel technologies that respond to these challenges may trigger the emergence of new policy subsystems at the intersection of established sectors. We develop a framework that addresses the complexities of ‘multi-system settings.’ Empirically, we explore belief and coalition formation in the nascent policy subsystem around hydrogen technologies in Germany, which emerges at the intersection of electricity, transport, heating, and industry and is characterised by a broad range of actors from different sectoral backgrounds. We find two coalitions: a rather unusual coalition of actors from industry, NGOs, and research institutes as well as an expectable coalition of gas and heat sector actors. Actors disagree over production, application, and import standards for hydrogen. However, there is widespread support for hydrogen and for a strong role of the state across almost all actors. We explain our findings by combining insights from the advocacy coalition framework and politics of transitions: Belief and coalition formation in a nascent subsystem are influenced by sectoral backgrounds of actors, technology characteristics, as well as trust and former contacts. Our study contributes to a better understanding of early stages of coalition formation in a multi-system setting.

Despite rising climate urgency, decision-makers continue to support emission reduction options that appear promising on the face of it but hinder progress in practice. Whether through more efficient gasoline engines or waste heat recovery from fossil fuel combustion, many proposed solutions encourage partial emissions reductions without adequate consideration of whether they can build toward net zero systems of the future. As a result, it is essential that policy decisions are interrogated in terms of their alignment with net zero pathways (or lack thereof) and that decision-makers are both informed about and held to account for the compatibility of near-term choices with long-run system change. This study conceptualizes particularly problematic directions as ‘dead-end pathways’ and outlines a framework for identifying and avoiding them. The framework assesses pathways in relation to three dimensions: depth (how close they can come to virtually eliminating emissions in a stipulated system context), breadth (how widely they can be applied across the specified system), and timeliness (how rapidly they can be deployed). The study then applies this framework to three brief case studies drawn from road transportation, each of which fail on one of these dimensions.