5

Exploring Social Science Factors Impacting Technology Development Toward Industrial Decarbonization

The workshop’s final panel on the first day explored social science factors impacting technology development for industrial decarbonization. Planning Committee Member Udayan Singh, Energy Systems Analyst at the Argonne National Laboratory, moderated the panel addressing technology choice, siting, construction, and community co-benefits. The panel highlighted potential research gaps for future studies to undertake to contribute to the ongoing discourse on sustainable industrial decarbonization.

EXPLORING COMMUNITY CO-BENEFITS, BARRIERS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH GAPS FOR INDUSTRIAL DECARBONIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Benjamin K. Sovacool, Professor of Earth and Environment as well as Director of the Institute for Sustainable Energy at Boston University, focused on three aspects of his commissioned paper:¹ co-benefits of decarbonization, barriers to decarbonization, and scaffolding for a future research agenda. He pointed out that current literature effectively maps the co-benefits of industrial decarbonization, exemplified by a study quantifying air pollution associated with the presence of carbon dioxide (CO₂), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, and particulate matter. The distribution of these benefits is presented in Figure 5-1, with industry (highlighted in red to distinguish it from electricity, transportation, and residential) showcasing substantial positive outcomes, notably in VOC reduction.

Sovacool noted that research on the Justice40 Initiative has revealed disparities among communities, specifically related to Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, and tribal communities. There are notable net pollution reducing benefits for carbon-free industrial activity compared to carbon-free electricity or light-duty vehicle transportation, particularly concentrated in the eastern part of the United States.²

___________________

¹ Sovacool, B. K. (2024). [Exploring community co-benefits, barriers, and future research gaps for industrial decarbonization in the United States]. Commissioned paper for the Committee on Developing and Assessing Ideas for Social and Behavioral Research to Speed Efficient and Equitable Industrial Decarbonization: A Workshop. The paper is available at https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/41881_02-2024_developing-and-assessing-ideas-for-social-and-behavioral-research-to-speed-efficient-and-equitable-industrial-decarbonization-a-workshop

² Gallagher, C. L., & Holloway, T. (2022). U.S. decarbonization impacts on air quality and environmental justice. Environmental Research Letters, 17(11), 114018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac99ef

Sovacool next addressed barriers, referencing a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report estimating the costs of capturing CO₂ across industrial sectors.³ The findings illustrate that, despite relative affordability in certain sectors such as ammonia or bioethanol, costs escalate significantly for direct air capture (DAC) technologies, with projections exceeding $1,000 per metric ton of CO₂ at the upper end of the range.

Referencing an atlas published by the Great Plains Institute that delineates locations of regional hubs,⁴ Sovacool noted that while proximity to hubs with storage capabilities for technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) can be advantageous for certain communities, there is no benefit for communities located further away. He added that this spatial aspect introduces considerations of justice and geographic heterogeneity into the decarbonization process. Disparities in viability for carbon capture retrofits, carbon storage, and hydrogen potential among regional hubs⁵ suggest the potential for certain communities to benefit more than others.

Next, Sovacool addressed what he believes will be a significant barrier: pipelines. Projections indicate a necessary expansion from 5,000 to at least 73,500–96,694 miles of new pipeline to transport CO₂ for storage.⁶ Viewing pipeline construction from a historical context—with past activity facilitated by eminent domain—Sovacool noted contrasts with contemporary challenges. He emphasized the substantial growth and escalating difficulty of building pipelines due to increased opposition. Exploring case studies spanning three decades, the

___________________

³ Government Accountability Office. (2022). Decarbonization: Status, challenges, and policy options for carbon capture, utilization, and storage (GAO-22-105274). https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105274

⁴ Abramson, E., Thomley, E., & McFarlane, D. (2022). An atlas of carbon and hydrogen hubs for United States decarbonization. Great Plains Institute. https://scripts.betterenergy.org/CarbonCaptureReady/GPI_Carbon_and_Hydrogen_Hubs_Atlas.pdf

⁵ Abramson, E., Thomley, E., & McFarlane, D. (2022). An atlas of carbon and hydrogen hubs for United States decarbonization. Great Plains Institute. https://scripts.betterenergy.org/CarbonCaptureReady/GPI_Carbon_and_Hydrogen_Hubs_Atlas.pdf

⁶ Government Accountability Office. (2022). Decarbonization: Status, challenges, and policy options for carbon capture, utilization, and storage (GAO-22-105274). https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105274

paper highlights evolving complexities associated with permitting and public participation. The evolving challenge of siting projects, he jokingly noted, has been transformed over time from the previously more common “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) approach⁷ into a “build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything” (BANANA) attitude. He said this change underscores the increasing difficulty and resistance to finding suitable locations for various projects.

A recent study delved into the tactics and resulting outcomes associated with opposition to energy infrastructure globally.⁸ Sovacool pointed out that findings reveal a broad spectrum of opposition extending beyond pipelines and coal to include resistance against renewables, nuclear, and even low-carbon infrastructure such as transmission networks essential for evacuating power from renewable sources. He suggested that the challenges relating to public opposition—akin to the BANANA sentiment—apply broadly to various forms of infrastructure, regardless of their environmental impact.

The paper references two reports—most notably a Department of Energy report addressing seven commercial challenges to industrial decarbonization that span economic, social, and political realms.⁹ Acknowledging a potential shift in political support for net zero in the future, Sovacool underscored the challenge of navigating inconsistent public acceptance across various demographics and regions.

The other report, published by GAO, identifies socio-technical challenges for carbon capture, utilization, and storage including cost, infrastructure development, and community engagement.¹⁰ Sovacool said these reports prompted the paper’s exploration of potential scaffolding for six future research gaps and data needs: a) development of theories and conceptual frameworks specific to industrial decarbonization; b) broad consideration of co-benefits beyond air pollution; c) innovative data collection methods utilizing representative national or local surveys specific to industrial decarbonization; d) movement beyond models and surveys to a strong evidence base; e) improved understanding of the portfolio aspects of technical industrial decarbonization options and crosscutting trade-off risks; and f) deeper appreciation of stakeholder networks and regional governance dynamics.

In addressing the need for knowledge on theories and frameworks specific to industrial decarbonization, Sovacool noted a review that not only identifies 88 potentially relevant theories but organizes them into three categories: core theories explicitly centered on industrial decarbonization, semi-core theories related to industrial transitions, and peripheral theories focusing on broader industrial-society relations.¹¹ These theories span eight diverse families of perspectives¹² that reveal the complexity and intellectual diversity within academic thinking on industrial decarbonization, encompassing differing core concepts, disciplines, definitions, and influencers. He noted that these theories operate at various scales. For instance, social practice theory focuses on managerial and corporate practices, while exnovation theory addresses the phase out of unwanted innovations at various scales, including supply chain, large technical systems, and macro-level socio-technical networks spanning continents like the electricity grid.

Other theories exhibit a multi-scale nature that can encompass systems disruption across various units of analysis, from individuals and institutions to governments and global market actors. The theories exhibit diverse

___________________

⁷ Gerrard, M. B. (1994). The victims of NIMBY. Fordham Urban Law Journal 21(3), 495–522; Schively, C. (2007). Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: Reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. Journal of Planning Literature, 21(3), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/088541220629584

⁸ Sovacool, B. K., Hess, D. J., Cantoni, R., Lee, D., Brisbois, M. C. Walnum, H. J., Dale, R. F., Rygg, B. J., Korsnes, M., Goswami, A., Kedia, S., & Goel, S. (2022). Conflicted transitions: Exploring the actors, tactics, and outcomes of social opposition against energy infrastructure. Global Environmental Change, 73, 102473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102473

⁹ Scott, K., Gilbert, A., Freeman, J., Brennan, M., Goldman, S., Gertler, C., Shepard, J., Green, T., & Jacobson, R. (2023). Pathways to commercial liftoff: Industrial decarbonization. U.S. Department of Energy.

¹⁰ Government Accountability Office. (2022). Decarbonization: Status, challenges, and policy options for carbon capture, utilization, and storage. (GAO-22-105274). https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105274

¹¹ Sovacool, B. K., Iskandarova, M., & Hall, J. (2023). Industrializing theories: A thematic analysis of conceptual frameworks and typologies for industrial sociotechnical change in a low-carbon future. Energy Research & Social Science, 97, 102954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.102954

¹² The eight families of perspectives include: “theories of sociotechnical transitions, innovation and diffusion, social equity and acceptance, space place and geography, organizational behavior and management, politics and governance, risk and communication, and industrial ecology and sociology.” Sovacool, B. K., Iskandarova, M., & Hall, J. (2023). Industrializing theories: A thematic analysis of conceptual frameworks and typologies for industrial sociotechnical change in a low-carbon future. Energy Research & Social Science, 97, 102954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.102954

phase models of time, termed socio-technical change, with some portraying time as a linear progression, others as a dual process involving phasing in and phasing out, and still others adopting a punctuated equilibria that responds to stimuli over time. There is no single process, Sovacool pointed out, but a multitude of complex processes, each with unique assumptions that try to address decarbonization.

The second area of the research agenda addresses co-benefits, predominantly examined as environmental co-benefits in the literature. Sovacool noted that financial and economic co-impacts, such as fuel and labor savings, can also exist. Additionally, these co-benefits can be socio-environmental (e.g., impacts on forests and oceans), technical innovation-driven co-impacts, or even political and institutional co-impacts (e.g., global leadership or advancement of policy goals). Notably, many of these low cost co-benefits remain absent from the existing evidence base.

The third area Sovacool discussed involved the exploration of diverse types of evidence. While many existing surveys on decarbonization focus on the broader context, this research does not typically delve into the specifics of industrial decarbonization. He pointed out that examining emissions profiles for various U.S. industries can offer valuable insights into nuanced attitudes toward decarbonization in specific sectors like ammonia, methanol, pulp and paper, refineries, and steel. He emphasized that this sector- and community-specific granularity represents a depth of analysis currently lacking in the public literature’s evidence base.

His fourth point promoted an enhanced methodological approach, emphasizing qualitative data collection through methods such as focus groups; community or expert interviews; household diaries; and a shift from stated to observed preferences through ethnography, participant observation, and other data collection techniques. He added that incorporation of innovative tools such as citizen assemblies, energy biographies, and citizen science data can foster active engagement, thereby acknowledging and leveraging expertise within these communities. He noted the case of Mothers Out Front in Massachusetts, in which a group of mothers took the lead in gas leak detection by employing advanced methods and data collection.¹³ Mothers Out Front effectively reduced methane leakage by educating themselves to utilize gas detection techniques to foster healthier, more resilient communities.

The fifth point Sovacool spoke about involved delving into technical challenges such as managing a diverse technology portfolio spanning various technology readiness levels including carbon capture, utilization, and storage as well as low-carbon fuels, feedstocks, and energy sources.¹⁴ He emphasized that managing complex innovations—each with its own uncertainties and resource constraints that can shift over time—presents an unprecedented challenge akin to an innovation management problem. He suggested that the application of strategic innovation management principles could help identify potential deployable technologies.

The final point was related to the concept of clusters and hubs. This cluster-based decarbonization approach, piloted in the United Kingdom¹⁵ and underway in Australia,¹⁶ involves a nuanced, innovative strategy for decarbonization. The cluster approach, Sovacool pointed out, is intricate, operating in a multi-sectoral, multi-technological, and multi-stakeholder framework. It aims to decarbonize entire regions, encompassing diverse industrial end uses (e.g., food and beverage, cement, steel refining), multiple technologies (e.g., hydrogen, DAC, CCS, offshore wind), and engaging various stakeholders ranging from individuals to city and state institutions. According to Sovacool, this approach is a pragmatic yet complex way to steer decarbonization efforts.

An examination of potential hubs for industrial decarbonization by the Great Plains Institute¹⁷ revealed that two key hubs, the Midwest and Illinois Basin and the Gulf Coast, produce over two-thirds of annual stationary emissions. Sovacool said the national industrial decarbonization policy could maximize emissions reduction benefits by

___________________

¹³ More information about Mothers Out Front is available at: https://www.mothersoutfront.org/

¹⁴ Department of Energy. (2022). Industrial decarbonization roadmap. (DOE/EE-2635). https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Industrial%20Decarbonization%20Roadmap.pdf

¹⁵ Sovacool, B. K., Geels, F. W., & Iskandarova, M. (2022). Industrial clusters for deep decarbonization: Net-zero megaprojects in the UK offer promise and lessons. Science, 378(6620), 601–604. https://doi.10.1126/science.add0402

¹⁶ Horngren, T., Leach, T., Maxwell, R., Graham, P., Kelly, R., Turner, K., & Malos, A. (2023). Pathways to industrial decarbonisation: Positioning Australian industry to prosper in a net zero global economy (Australian Industry Energy Transitions Initiative, Phase 3 Report). Climateworks Centre and Climate-KIC Australia. https://energytransitionsinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Pathways-to-Industrial-Decarbonisation-report-Updated-August-2023-Australian-Industry-ETI.pdf

¹⁷ Abramson, E., Thomley, E., & McFarlane, D. (2022). An atlas of carbon and hydrogen hubs for United States decarbonization. Great Plains Institute. https://scripts.betterenergy.org/CarbonCaptureReady/GPI_Carbon_and_Hydrogen_Hubs_Atlas.pdf

targeting the Midwest and Gulf Coast. However, the governance of such initiatives, he continued, poses challenges given the interplay of multiple jurisdictions, diverse policies at state and federal levels, and varying standards. Sovacool concluded by underscoring the ongoing complexity of industrial decarbonization.

UNRAVELING THE POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENGINEERING DIMENSIONS

Jeff Colgan, Richard Holbrooke Professor in the Department of Political Science and Director of the Climate Solutions Lab at the Watson Institute for Public and International Affairs at Brown University, began by describing decarbonization as a three-fold challenge encompassing engineering, economics, and politics. He referenced the economic dimension by stressing that technological advancements need to align with commercial viability. He further acknowledged the role of politics, emphasizing the necessity of navigating institutional, regulatory, and political hurdles to achieve successful decarbonization—even under favorable economic conditions.

In formulating a social science research agenda, Colgan advocated for a strategic approach, prioritizing responding to specific questions over generating an extensive list of potential research inquiries. While acknowledging the allure of a broad range of research options, he stated that achieving a rapid decarbonization agenda necessitates a concentrated focus on pertinent topics. He suggested two research questions. The first involves addressing the foundational challenge of rapidly establishing abundant clean electricity as a basis for all other climate solutions. He contended that many climate-related initiatives hinge on the availability of clean electricity, underscoring its pivotal role in advancing broader environmental goals. He stressed the importance of remembering the international dimension when addressing this complex issue. The second aspect to consider, Colgan suggested, is that decarbonization can be expedited by the Global North through offering support and incentives to the Global South. Both research questions are long-term problems that need to be addressed concurrently because, as he remarked, “if we don’t succeed at both, we don’t make our climate goals.”

Delving into the challenge associated with ensuring abundant clean electricity, Colgan highlighted the potential issue of high electricity prices—as seen in California, for example—which could make fossil fuels more appealing from a cost perspective. The current difficulty associated with attracting the investments necessary to produce clean electricity is not attributable to a lack of effective clean energy generation methods, given the affordability of solar and wind power. The obstacles, he pointed out, lie in grid interconnections, transmission, and distribution. These obstacles—rooted in rules, institutions, and politics—underscore the need for social science to be intertwined with technical and engineering considerations. Acknowledging that progress in this domain has been slower than desirable, Colgan stated that any economy-wide carbon price will either be politically infeasible or too low to make an impact.¹⁸

On the subject of barriers to grid interconnection among U.S. states, Colgan noted that some states exhibit effective practices while others impede clean energy efforts. Further, he asked what could be done to enhance or improve the effectiveness of the rules, institutions, and regimes governing grid interconnections.

Next, Colgan noted inequality dimensions related to a clean, reliable electricity grid and the growing concern about future power outages and their potential impacts on equity and environmental justice. He discussed how utilities and private firms connected to the electrical grid could benefit or optimize amid climate stresses and also highlighted the need for awareness regarding the potential misalignment between profit motives and the goal of ensuring reliable electricity.

Focusing on the industrial aspect, Colgan explored building political support for decarbonization in the face of diverse interests opposing strong action. The flowchart shown in Figure 5-2 shows the policy–politics feedback cycle and highlights the interconnected relationship between today’s policies and future politics. The cycle involves: 1) how climate change can lead to either policy responses and/or jobs and economic activity; 2) how this activity then goes on to disrupt actors’ interests and political power; 3) how changes in interests and power then shapes the dynamics of political contestation—and how all of this ultimately circles back to promote additional policy responses to climate change.

___________________

¹⁸ Victor, D. & Cullenward, D. (2020). Making climate policy work. Polity.

Examining ways to generate future political support for decarbonization, Colgan presented several areas for consideration including, for example, investigating the circumstances under which labor interests endorse green policies and properly attributing credit for climate initiatives. Additional inquiries could focus on the following areas: the conditions holding companies accountable for their environmental commitments in public or investor statements to prevent greenwashing, sequencing policies to build support for a green economy, and understanding how effective institutions manage trade-offs between competing environmental goals.

To summarize, Colgan emphasized three key messages. First, for funders, he urged a focus on socio-political institutions working alongside technology to promote successful decarbonization. Second, for researchers, he called for prioritization of social science questions that can influence significant climate impacts. Last, he suggested the collective need to consider the political economy of clean electricity as a foundational element for future climate solutions.

REFLECTIONS ON POLICY, SOCIETAL EXPECTATIONS, AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF SOCIAL LIFECYCLE ASSESSMENTS

Jennifer Dunn, Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering and Director of the Center for Engineering Sustainability and Resilience at Northwestern University, shared three key questions that arose upon reviewing the paper and while considering Sovacool’s presentation. Her first question pertained to how the funding of carbon capture and hydrogen hubs necessitates Community Benefits Plans (CBPs), which require the quantification of community benefits. Lifecycle assessments (LCAs) have been used to set thresholds for recent greenhouse gas emission policies, applicable to areas like biofuels, hydrogen, and building materials. While this approach is logical for many policymakers who can compare performance against specific benchmarks to determine qualification for tax credits or other benefits, she noted that a similar approach is lacking for quantifying a social benefit. While certain qualitative aspects can be considered, no effective method exists for quantifying social benefits as a threshold for cross-comparison among various options.

The second question revolved around societal expectations of industry, particularly regarding resistance to industrial projects like pipelines. Despite established processes like the requirement to obtain permits and undergo the National Environmental Policy Act process for environmental impacts, widespread protests and efforts to

obstruct projects make it evident that these environmental protection procedures are not meeting societal expectations. There is a disconnect between societal expectations and the ability to meet these expectations, she noted. The third related question delved into what communities want to know regarding industrial projects and how to best provide that information.

Drawing on her expertise centered on LCAs, Dunn’s work focuses on integrating social LCAs (SCLAs) to yield comprehensive and comparable outcomes for various technologies. The parallel structures of ELCAs and SCLAs are evident in the four phases they share. In phase one—goal and scope definition—various options are compared. Phase two involves lifecycle inventory analysis, during which data are collected. The third phase—lifecycle impact assessment—evaluates the outcomes of environmental or social impacts based on data collected in the second phase. The fourth phase involves interpreting the effects of the system based on phase three and addressing the critical question of whether LCA impacts and policies align with community needs.

Dunn reflected on the differences between ELCAs and SLCAs. One notable difference is that SLCAs have six stakeholder categories outlined by the United Nations.¹⁹ Of the six stakeholder categories, she noted that local community, workers, and society are particularly relevant (the other three categories are consumers, value chain actors, and children). Within each stakeholder category, various indicators like safe and healthy living conditions can play a crucial role in assessing people’s lived experiences. Notably, she pointed out data disparities that exist between ELCAs and SLCAs, with SLCAs often relying on national-level databases, some of which are not easily accessible due to paywalls. Lack of accessibility can raise concerns about data confidence, especially when data may not reflect the community’s lived experience. Addressing this challenge, she said, requires the development of cost-effective, rapidly deployable, accurate, and verifiable data sources for SLCAs. She noted that balancing the urgency of climate change with the time-intensive nature of community engagement poses a significant tension. Establishing trust and relationships with communities is a time-consuming yet crucial aspect that can inform social science and engineering research. Navigating this tension, Dunn said, is essential for advancing community-based work.

In proposing improvements to SLCAs, she drew upon results from a case study involving cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.²⁰ In this case study, emphasis was placed on considering diverse social science instruments that could examine generic indicators like child labor. Worksites and household surveys represent potential data sources to assess labor characteristics. Another indicator addressed concerns like delocalization, in which local public records (e.g., land-related court claims introduced to facilitate data extraction for SLCAs without on-site investigations) are a potential data source.

Regarding the desire to find a generic indicator of safe and healthy living conditions, remote sensing emerged as a potential data source used to monitor changes in land use, offering insights into potential co-benefits or detractions resulting from decarbonization strategies. The assessment could extend to the existence or loss of natural lands, which can impact overall living conditions. In addition, Dunn mentioned employing cross-culturally validated scales, such as those measuring water insecurity.

The Water Insecurity Experiences (WISE) scales developed by Sera Young²¹ were noted by Dunn as a valuable measurement tool in assessing water insecurity. These scales—applicable to various dimensions such as food insecurity, women’s empowerment, labor experience, and mental health—yield accurate and reliable results, offering a quick and cost-effective alternative to traditional surveys. Notably, WISE scales can be designed for validity in a cross-cultural context, ensuring applicability across diverse regions. In summary, Dunn pointed out that the WISE scales represent one of many tools in the evolving toolbox dedicated to comprehending the social impacts of industrial decarbonization technologies.

___________________

¹⁹ Benoît Norris, C., Traverso, M., Neugebauer, S., Ekener, E., Schaubroeck, T., Russo Garrido, S., Berger, M., Valdivia, S., Lehmann, A., Finkbeiner, M., & Arcese, G. (2020). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products and organizations 2020. United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Guidelines-for-Social-Life-Cycle-Assessment-of-Products-and-Organizations-2020-22.1.21sml.pdf

²⁰ Bamana, G., Miller, J. D., Young, S. L., & Dunn, J. B. (2021). Addressing the social life cycle inventory analysis data gap: Insights from a case study of cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. One Earth, 12(4), 1704–1714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.11.007

²¹ More information on the WISE Scales is available at https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/wise-scales/

NAVIGATING EQUITY, COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT, AND GLOBAL IMPACTS IN INDUSTRIAL DECARBONIZATION

Simone H. Stewart, Senior Industrial Policy Specialist on the Climate and Energy Policy team at the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), noted that her perspective is rooted in field work associated with implementing policies and practices. She emphasized the importance of understanding and quantifying benefits within communities. Drawing upon conversations with community members regarding Justice40 and various other programs related to industrial decarbonization, carbon capture, and hydrogen, she noted the necessity of considering the disproportionate needs and injustices across sectors in the United States. She highlighted the importance of gaining insights into not only how benefits are quantified but also how they are distributed over time.

Stewart emphasized the importance of community participation in determining what constitutes a benefit. She shared insights from focus groups in Louisiana—a key area for industrial decarbonization—where community members expressed an interest in receiving broader benefits that go beyond direct project impacts, such as addressing flooding protocols and protecting natural infrastructure from erosion. She pointed out that the intersection between community-defined social considerations regarding what is deemed a “benefit,” and what industry can provide are often misaligned. Stewart recommended both meeting communities’ needs and reshaping power dynamics to promote greater community empowerment. Acknowledging the role of policy, especially in the context outlined by Colgan, she highlighted CBPs²² such as those under Justice40, saying that these plans are effective tools for considering benefits and redistributing power. The goal, she said, is to enable communities to develop essential infrastructure without relying solely on industry.

Stewart underscored the complex reality faced by many communities, particularly environmental justice communities or other disenfranchised communities. She emphasized the challenge of reconciling the dual positive and negative role of industry in the lives of people in those communities. For example, in terms of jobs and economic benefits in the decarbonization sector, she said that it is important to acknowledge the dual truth that an industry can provide jobs while at the same time having a negative impact. In exploring future frameworks and research agendas, Stewart called for first reconciling the employment versus well-being framework; second, addressing the historical sacrifices communities have made for employment, like those seen in Appalachia’s coal community; and third, recognizing the nuanced pride and challenges associated with certain jobs that are deeply embedded in community identity.

Stewart acknowledged the intricate relationship—including both localized impacts and ripple effects—between local industry and the broader national or global supply chain. In the context of decarbonization, localized effects often face pushback from environmental groups, while the ripple effect can be seen in the Global South where critical minerals are mined. This underscores the need, she said, to consider the hyperlocal context alongside global implications.

Last, Stewart emphasized the need for holistic advocacy efforts, suggesting that while surveys offer surface-level insights, they may not delve deeply enough into a community’s experiences. Acknowledging the challenges of historical policy impacts, she commented that to achieve a more equitable future in which an appropriate power distribution exists among communities and industry, it will be important to think comprehensively about strategies. She explained that NWF draws upon interdisciplinary knowledge—including academic insights—in its use of dual-related studies combining surveys with on the ground focus groups. This approach allows advocacy organizations to gain a nuanced understanding of community perspectives and, by so doing, informs their work at both the grassroots and federal policy levels.

Stewart noted that a research agenda with actionable strategies alongside organizations sharing learned insights can create a valuable feedback loop. She highlighted the importance, especially for 501(c)(3) organizations, of aligning with funder and constituency expectations. Clearly demonstrating the practical application of academic

___________________

²² Sovacool shared that Impact Benefit Agreements, used in the Canadian mining industry, could be a model to consider as they generate pre-agreed revenues to handle potential issues or complications. For additional information, see: Meerveld, D. (2016). Assessing value: A comprehensive study of impact benefit agreements on Indigenous communities of Canada. University of Ottawa. https://ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/34816/4/Meerveld,%20Drew%2020161.pdf; Cascadden, M., Gunton, T., & Rutherford, M. (2021). Best practices for impact benefit agreements. Resources Policy, 70, 101921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101921

research in their work allows organizations to showcase the impact of research to funders and, in so doing, emphasize the collaborative effort required.

NAVIGATING EQUITY AND JUSTICE IN RESEARCH AND DECISION MAKING

Referencing the panelists’ discussion, Singh noted the emphasis on equity and justice concerns and the national and global implications of decisions. He asked panelists to reflect on ways to navigate the social scale of the research agenda to address these complex and interconnected issues.

Sovacool discussed efforts to realize energy justice frameworks, emphasizing the need to move beyond Western notions of distribution, procedure, and recognition to issues such as Indigenous, anti-racist, and feminist justice. He highlighted a review article that not only examined decarbonization innovations but also identified four scales and dimensions of injustices and inequities necessitating a whole-systems approach: spatial, demographic, temporal, and anthropocentric.²³ Spatial justice involves issues such as electricity network distribution as well as those arising between the Global North and Global South or urban and rural areas. Demographic justice focuses on issues such as race, class, education, income, and gender. Temporal justice addresses risks created by current actions that could possibly impact the future. Lastly, anthropocentric justice considers the positive and negative impacts of human choices and behaviors on other species and the environment.

Stewart highlighted the importance of prioritizing various types of justice, including the harmonization between people and wildlife—specifically in Indigenous frameworks. In the context of industrial decarbonization, she noted the public’s lack of understanding of industries and emphasized the need for interdisciplinary work aiming to create a holistic picture of the future. To conclude, she underscored the role of dual aspects of understanding where things come from and how they work (e.g., enjoying hiking versus understanding the biodiversity of the area through which one is hiking) and of promoting interdisciplinary collaboration.

In distinguishing between the embodiment of science and the added value attained in the context of lifecycle analysis, Elke Weber, Planning Committee Member, highlighted that “we need science and social science for lifecycle analysis and maybe social science for social lifecycle analysis.” She noted the challenge of incorporating multiple dimensions of analysis to make decisions about the adoption of decarbonization technologies and the speed of adoption, suggesting that societal values and social consensus can play a crucial role. In noting the influence of power imbalances in shaping these decisions, Weber asked panelists for suggestions for addressing these considerations.

Reflecting on her work, Dunn emphasized the importance of providing information to communities to promote their engagement in the decision-making process. Stewart’s insight about the public’s lack of understanding of industry resonated with her, prompting Dunn to note the need to convey not only technological aspects but also benefits. In discussing various technologies like ammonia and hydrogen, Dunn noted, it is often challenging to comprehensively explain the differences, which raises concerns about effective communication. Despite this struggle, Dunn said the focus needs to be on facilitating community access to information and data and allowing community members to make their own value judgments. Singh responded that he is also concerned about necessary information reaching the public. He questioned whether members of the public require detailed specifics, such as differences between blast and electric gas furnaces, for example.

Victor inquired about the value of focusing on research insights that may be used to enhance practical endeavors, thus moving away from hypothetical scenarios to actionable insights. In response, Stewart reflected that people’s inquiries often revolve around on the ground issues rather than seeking out intricate technological details. She stressed the interconnectedness of environmental justice with broader social justice issues such as economic justice, health care, and public education. She emphasized the importance of understanding and undoing global societal injustices and promoting a just societal transition by addressing the concerns of the most disenfranchised—all while navigating the complexities of industrial decarbonization. Social science, she noted, can

___________________

²³ Sovacool, B. K., Barnacle, M. L., Smith, A., & Brisbois, M. C. (2022). Towards improved solar energy justice: Exploring the complex inequities of household adoption of photovoltaic panels. Energy Policy, 164, 112868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112868

bridge the gap between technological explanations and the challenges individuals face in their everyday lives, such as financial instability.

To address the challenge of increasing public understanding, Jennifer Hirsch, an earlier panelist (see Chapter 4), noted the crucial need to differentiate between the public and community-based or environmental justice organizations that have extensive experience. She suggested that drawing upon popular techniques used by educators, which involve integrating personal experiences and stories into larger frameworks, can facilitate mutual learning. She added that it is essential to recognize that experts, including scientists and engineers, exist within communities. In fact, many community leaders, even if they are not experts, possess a deep understanding of environmental issues and can thus contribute valuable insights. In summary, she noted that collaboration with these experts can help ensure an effective community engagement process.

The challenge, Sovacool noted, lies in empowering decision making in both already-informed individuals as well as those with limited preexisting knowledge. While he acknowledged a desire for inclusivity, he pointed out examples illustrating the public’s knowledge gap, citing misconceptions about smart meters, unawareness of owning a flex fuel vehicle, and misunderstandings about energy sources and sources of freshwater as examples of lack of knowledge that can impact informed decision making.