Lynn Haasloop Werner

A Carbon Lock-In is in the Pipeline: An analysis of how carbon lock-in caused by fossil fuel dependency influences an inclusive energy transition away from fossil fuels in a North-South context through a case study of Argentina


“Argentina’s carbon lock-in does not promote inclusive development. However, there seems to be an opportunity for change on the societal dimension of the carbon lock-in by a correct implementation of environmental policies. Since the three dimensions of the carbon lock-in are interconnected and influence each other, there might be a window of opportunity for change on the other dimensions of the carbon lock-in as well.”

Abstract: Current development trajectories are heavily reliant on fossil fuels and in order to mitigate the negative effects of climate change, curtailing of fossil fuel production is needed. While developing countries are locking themselves into a carbon economy, there lies an opportunity for developing countries to ‘leapfrog’ carbon intensive pathways. This research aims to fill the gap in knowledge on the implications of a carbon lock-in for an inclusive transition, and answers the question: How does a carbon lock-in influence an inclusive transition away from fossil fuels to achieve inclusive development, paying special attention to shale fracking in a North-South context? A case study of Argentina has been conducted. The methods used were an academic literature review, semi-structured interviews with experts, an analysis of secondary data sources and a content analysis of reports and policies. The research concludes that the carbon lock-in is most likely hampering an inclusive transition away from fossil fuels in Argentina, because of three reasons: (1) Argentina is locked in on the three dimensions of the carbon lock-in through an established FF dependency, normative views influenced by the industry and ‘systemic failure’. This includes increasing public debt, hyperinflation and increasing poverty that the government unsuccessfully tries to overcome by spending money on the development of fossil fuels through huge amounts of subsidies; (2) Argentina’s transition strategy is focused on gas as a bridge fuel, which implies a prolonged dependency on FFs for its energy supply, exclusive development pathways and an increased risk of forthcoming stranded assets; and (3) Argentina’s regulatory framework is not inclusive, which suggests that it does not protect the natural environment, does not generate wellbeing, includes unequal decision making and contradicts itself. In order to move towards an inclusive form of development, Argentina should reconsider its development strategy focused on the exploitation of the large shale oil and gas field Vaca Muerta since it is associated with ‘capital flight’ and foreign exchange debt.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top