Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Structural limitations of the decarbonization state

Nature Climate Change volume 15, pages 927–934 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

To achieve net-zero climate targets, many states have ramped up ambitions to decarbonize their economies. Despite these aspirations, the emerging decarbonization state faces a serious implementation gap between ambitious targets and actual policies, intensified by climate backsliding pressure. We argue that a deeper understanding of the prevalent model of the liberal capitalist state and its basic functions (that is, ensuring economic growth, maintaining legitimacy and providing security) can help to explain this gap. We conceptualize the nascent decarbonization state as increasingly aiming to shift from fossil fuels towards renewable energy rather than merely improving existing technologies. This transformation of the state, however, challenges basic functions of the underlying liberal capitalist state model. Our analysis implies analytical and normative avenues for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: State functions and key limitations of the environmental and decarbonization state.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. IPCC Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report (eds Lee, H. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2023).

  2. Emissions Gap Report 2023: Broken Record (UNEP, 2023); https://www.unep.org/interactives/emissions-gap-report/2023/

  3. Lamperti, F., Mazzucato, M., Roventini, A. & Semieniuk, G. The green transition: public policy, finance, and the role of the state. VJH 88, 73–88 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Report of the Conference of the Parties Serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement on Its Fifth Session, Held in the United Arab Emirates from 30 November to 13 December 2023 (UNFCCC, 2024); https://unfccc.int/documents/637073

  5. Stechemesser, A. et al. Climate policies that achieved major emission reductions: global evidence from two decades. Science 385, 884–892 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schaub, S., Tosun, J. & Jordan, A. J. Climate action through policy expansion and/or dismantling: country-comparative insights: an introduction to the special issue. J. Comp. Policy Anal. Res. Pract. 26, 215–232 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Emissions Gap Report 2024: No More Hot Air … Please! With a Massive Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality, Countries Draft New Climate Commitments (UNEP, 2024).

  8. Bongardt, D., Stiller, L., Swart, A. & Wagner, A. Sustainable Urban Transport: Avoid–Shift–Improve (A–S–I) (Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2019); https://www.connective-cities.net/infothek/publikationen/publikationen-details/sustainable-urban-transport-avoid-shift-improve-a-s-i

  9. Creutzig, F. et al. Demand-side solutions to climate change mitigation consistent with high levels of well-being. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 36–46 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Creutzig, F. et al. Demand-side strategies key for mitigating material impacts of energy transitions. Nat. Clim. Change 14, 561–572 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Geels, F. W., Sovacool, B. K., Schwanen, T. & Sorrell, S. Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science 357, 1242–1244 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sovacool, B. K. et al. The acceleration of low-carbon transitions: insights, concepts, challenges, and new directions for research. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 121, 103948 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zell-Ziegler, C. et al. Enough? The role of sufficiency in European energy and climate plans. Energy Policy 157, 112483 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brad, A. et al. Existing demand-side climate change mitigation policies neglect avoid options. Preprint at Research Square https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5998199/v1 (2025).

  15. Duit, A., Feindt, P. H. & Meadowcroft, J. Greening Leviathan: the rise of the environmental state? Environ. Politics 25, 1–23 (2016). This introductory paper traces the historical emergence of the environmental state and its novel functions as distinct from the pre-existing welfare state.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Meadowcroft, J. in Comparative Environmental Politics (eds Steinberg, F. & VanDeveer, S. D.) 63–88 (MIT Press, 2012).

  17. Gough, I. Welfare states and environmental states: a comparative analysis. Environ. Politics 25, 24–47 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hausknost, D. The environmental state and the glass ceiling of transformation. Environ. Politics 29, 17–37 (2020). This conceptual paper offers an explanatory account of the structural barriers to state-led sustainability transformations beyond conventional environmental reforms.

  19. Trencher, G., Rinscheid, A., Rosenbloom, D. & Truong, N. The rise of phase-out as a critical decarbonisation approach: a systematic review. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 123002 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hildingsson, R., Kronsell, A. & Khan, J. The green state and industrial decarbonisation. Environ. Politics 28, 909–928 (2019). This article examines how the declining importance of energy-intensive industries changes the conditions of possibility for state-led decarbonization.

  21. Green, J. F. Explaining green industrial policy in an age of globalization. Nat. Clim. Change 14, 783–784 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bertram, C. et al. Complementing carbon prices with technology policies to keep climate targets within reach. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 235–239 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rosenbloom, D., Markard, J., Geels, F. W. & Fuenfschilling, L. Why carbon pricing is not sufficient to mitigate climate change—and how “sustainability transition policy” can help. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 8664–8668 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Dunlap, A. in A Critical Approach to the Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Infrastructures (eds Batel, S. & Rudolph, D.) 83–102 (Springer, 2021); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73699-6_5The book chapter analyses how powerful actors at the EU level obstruct ambitious climate action, reduce the ambition of policy initiatives and make them more market friendly.

  25. Fressoz, J.-B. Sans transition: une nouvelle histoire de l’énergie (Éditions du Seuil, 2024).

  26. Plehwe, D., Neujeffski, M. & Haas, T. in Climate Obstruction Across Europe (eds Brulle, R. J. et al.) Ch. 13 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2024); https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197762042.003.0013

  27. Brad, A. & Schneider, E. Carbon dioxide removal and mitigation deterrence in EU climate policy: towards a research approach. Environ. Sci. Policy 150, 103591 (2023). The article discusses how carbon removal may undermine or delay decarbonization efforts and introduces a research approach to trace such effects in climate policymaking.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lockwood, B. & Lockwood, M. How do right-wing populist parties influence climate and renewable energy policies? Evidence from OECD countries. Glob. Environ. Politics 22, 12–37 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mitchell, T. Carbon Democracy: Political Power in the Age of Oil (Verso, 2013). This monograph shows how fossil fuels have shaped democratic politics and institutions, that is, how democracy as a form of politics interacts with the processes of producing, distributing and using carbon energy.

  30. Pichler, M. Political dimensions of social–ecological transformations: polity, politics, policy. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 19, 2222612 (2023). The article systematizes the political nature of transformative change by analytically separating economic and institutional structures (polity), conflicts and power relations (politics), and content and design (policy).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. & Robinson, J. A. in Handbook of Economic Growth (eds Aghion, P. & Durlauf, S. N.) 385–472 (Elsevier, 2005).

  32. Jessop, B. The State: Past, Present, Future (Polity Press, 2016).

  33. Offe, C. Contradictions of the Welfare State (Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2019).

  34. Parrique, T. et al. Decoupling Debunked: Evidence and Arguments against Green Growth as a Sole Strategy for Sustainability (EEB, 2019); https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Decoupling-Debunked.pdf

  35. Hickel, J. & Kallis, G. Is green growth possible? N. Polit. Econ. 25, 469–486 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Habermas, J., McCarthy, T. A. & Habermas, J. Legitimation Crisis (Beacon Press, 1975).

  37. Hearn, J. The strength of weak legitimacy: a cultural analysis of legitimacy in capitalist, liberal, democratic nation-states. J. Polit. Power 4, 199–216 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hausknost, D. Opacity and transparency: on the ‘passive legitimacy’ of capitalist democracy. Theoria 70, 26–53 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ripsman, N. M. & Paul, T. V. Globalization and the national security state: a framework for analysis. Int. Stud. Rev. 7, 199–227 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Boikova, T., Zeverte-Rivza, S., Rivza, P. & Rivza, B. The determinants and effects of competitiveness: the role of digitalization in the European economies. Sustainability 13, 11689 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Brand, U. & Wissen, M. The Imperial Mode of Living: Everyday Life and the Ecological Crisis of Capitalism (Verso, 2021). This monograph critically examines how everyday life in capitalist centres—and increasingly in emerging economies—is deeply intertwined with global systems of exploitation and environmental degradation.

  42. Zografos, C. & Robbins, P. Green sacrifice zones, or why a green new deal cannot ignore the cost shifts of just transitions. One Earth 3, 543–546 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hickel, J., Dorninger, C., Wieland, H. & Suwandi, I. Imperialist appropriation in the world economy: drain from the global south through unequal exchange, 1990–2015. Glob. Environ. Change 73, 102467 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Bridge, G. Resource geographies II: the resource-state nexus. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 38, 118–130 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Christophers, B. Fossilised capital: price and profit in the energy transition. N. Polit. Econ. 27, 146–159 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Energy Profits Data: June 2025 (Energy Profits, 2025); https://energy-profits.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Jun-25_Energy-Profits_Data-2.pdf

  47. Rinscheid, A., Rosenbloom, D., Markard, J. & Turnheim, B. From terminating to transforming: the role of phase-out in sustainability transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 41, 27–31 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kupzok, N. & Nahm, J. The decarbonization bargain: how the decarbonizable sector shapes climate politics. Perspect. Politics 22, 1203–1223 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Carton, W., Hougaard, I.-M., Markusson, N. & Lund, J. F. Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 14, e826 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Urry, J. Societies Beyond Oil: Oil Dregs and Social Futures (Zed Books, 2013).

  51. Pirani, S. Burning Up: A Global History of Fossil Fuel Consumption (Pluto Press, 2018).

  52. Lèbre, É. et al. The social and environmental complexities of extracting energy transition metals. Nat. Commun. 11, 4823 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. European Commission: Directorate General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, Grohol. M. & Veeh, C. Study on the Critical Raw Materials for the EU 2023: Final Report (Publications Office, 2023).

  54. Owen, J. R. et al. Energy transition minerals and their intersection with land-connected peoples. Nat. Sustain. 6, 203–211 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Dunlap, A., Verweijen, J. & Tornel, C. The political ecologies of ‘green’ extractivism(s): an introduction. J. Polit. Ecol. 31, 1–28 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Andreucci, D. et al. The coloniality of green extractivism: unearthing decarbonisation by dispossession through the case of nickel. Polit. Geogr. 107, 102997 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Dorn, F. M., Hafner, R. & Plank, C. Towards a climate change consensus: how mining and agriculture legitimize green extractivism in Argentina. Extr. Ind. Soc. 11, 101130 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  58. The Geopolitics of Green Colonialism: Global Justice and Ecosocial Transitions (Pluto Press, 2024). This edited volume critiques the environmental injustices and green colonialism arising from the global north’s climate ‘solutions’, highlighting the disproportionate burden placed on the global south through resource extractivism and geopolitical dynamics, while featuring voices from the global south to explore alternative pathways towards a globally just and liveable future.

  59. A New World: The Geopolitics of the Energy Transformation (IRENA, 2019); https://www.irena.org/-/media/files/irena/agency/publication/2019/jan/global_commission_geopolitics_new_world_2019.pdf

  60. Vakulchuk, R., Overland, I. & Scholten, D. Renewable energy and geopolitics: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 122, 109547 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Cheng, J. et al. Trade risks to energy security in net-zero emissions energy scenarios. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02305-1 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Post, E. & Le Billon, P. The ‘green war’: geopolitical metabolism and green extractivisms. Geopolitics 30, 760–800 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Brand, U. & Wissen, M. Eco-imperial tensions: decarbonization strategies in times of geopolitical upheaval. Crit. Sociol. https://doi.org/10.1177/08969205241252774 (2024).

  64. Newell, P. Power Shift: The Global Political Economy of Energy Transitions (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).

  65. Staritz, C., Tröster, B. & Wojewska, A. N. Price-making in provisioning systems and social-ecological transformation? The cases of the electric vehicle metals copper, cobalt, and lithium. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 20, 2327667 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Babić, M. & Mertens, D. Decarbonization under geoeconomic distress? Energy shocks, carbon lock‐ins, and Germany’s pathway toward net zero. Regul. Gov. 19, 448–468 (2025). This contribution examines how geoeconomic shocks and rivalry impact on decarbonization governance through various channels (operational, political, investment).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Riofrancos, T. The security–sustainability nexus: lithium onshoring in the global north. Glob. Environ. Politics 23, 20–41 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Wojewska, A. N., Staritz, C., Tröster, B. & Leisenheimer, L. The criticality of lithium and the finance-sustainability nexus: supply–demand perceptions, state policies, production networks, and financial actors. Extr. Ind. Soc. 17, 101393 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  69. SIPRI Military Expenditure Database (SIPRI, 2025); https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex

  70. Belcher, O., Bigger, P., Neimark, B. & Kennelly, C. Hidden carbon costs of the “everywhere war”: logistics, geopolitical ecology, and the carbon boot‐print of the US military. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 45, 65–80 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Block, K., Li, M., Gärtner, J. & Lenzen, M. Geopolitical conflict impedes climate change mitigation. npj Clim. Action 4, 33 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Bang, G., Rosendahl, K. E. & Böhringer, C. Balancing cost and justice concerns in the energy transition: comparing coal phase-out policies in Germany and the UK. Clim. Policy 22, 1000–1015 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Haas, T. & Sander, H. The European Car Lobby: A Critical Analaysis of the Impact of the Automotive Industry (Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, 2019).

  74. Driscoll, D. Populism and carbon tax justice: the yellow vest movement in France. Soc. Probl. 70, 143–163 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Haas, T., Sander, H., Fünfgeld, A. & Mey, F. Climate obstruction at work: right-wing populism and the German heating law. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 123, 104034 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Meckling, J. & Karplus, V. J. Political strategies for climate and environmental solutions. Nat. Sustain. 6, 742–751 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Ergen, T. & Schmitz, L. Picking losers: climate change and managed decline in the European Union. Regul. Gov. 19, 383–398 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Raymond, L. Carbon pricing and economic populism: the case of Ontario. Clim. Policy 20, 1127–1140 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Crowley, K. Up and down with climate politics 2013–2016: the repeal of carbon pricing in Australia. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 8, e458 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. OECD Inventory of Export Restrictions on Industrial Raw Materials 2024: Monitoring the Use of Export Restrictions amid Market and Policy Tensions (OECD, 2024); https://doi.org/10.1787/5e46bb20-en

  81. Caramento, A., Saunders, R. G. & Larmer, M. The return of resource nationalism to southern Africa—introduction. J. South. Afr. Stud. 49, 339–357 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Wijaya, T. & Sinclair, L. An EV-fix for Indonesia: the green development-resource nationalist nexus. Environ. Politics 34, 252–274 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Tiedemann, N. Ecological uprisings in the European periphery: Serbian environmental movements against authoritarian extractivism. Austrian J. Dev. Stud. 40, 88–106 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Noever Castelos, C. Mining out of the crisis? The role of the state in the expansion of the lithium frontier in Extremadura, Spain. Extr. Ind. Soc. 15, 101329 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  85. Lunday, C. & von der Burchard, H. Germany’s Merz secures breakthrough on gargantuan spending plan. POLITICO https://www.politico.eu/article/germanys-merz-secures-breakthrough-on-historic-spending-plan/ (2025).

  86. Advancing Clean Technology Manufacturing An Energy Technology Perspectives Special Report (IEA, 2024); https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/7e7f4b17-1bb2-48e4-8a92-fb9355b1d1bd/CleanTechnologyManufacturingRoadmap.pdf

  87. Dubash, N. K. Varieties of climate governance: the emergence and functioning of climate institutions. Environ. Politics 30, 1–25 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Fernandes, S. in Global Authoritarianism (eds International Research Group) 57–76 (transcript, 2022).

  89. The Far Right and the Environment: Politics, Discourse and Communication (Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2020).

  90. Paterson, M., Wilshire, S. & Tobin, P. The rise of anti-net zero populism in the UK: comparing rhetorical strategies for climate policy dismantling. J. Comp. Policy Anal. Res. Pract. 26, 332–350 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Candeias, M. Wir leben in keiner offenen Situation mehr. Zeitschrift Luxemburg https://zeitschrift-luxemburg.de/artikel/wir-leben-in-keiner-offenen-situation-mehr (2023).

  92. Vogel, J., Steinberger, J. K., O’Neill, D. W., Lamb, W. F. & Krishnakumar, J. Socio-economic conditions for satisfying human needs at low energy use: an international analysis of social provisioning. Glob. Environ. Change 69, 102287 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Eckersley, R. Greening states and societies: from transitions to great transformations. Environ. Politics 30, 245–265 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Bärnthaler, R. & Gough, I. Provisioning for sufficiency: envisaging production corridors. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 19, 2218690 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  95. Steinberger, J., Gauthier, G., Hofferberth, E. & Pirgmaier, E. Democratizing provisioning systems: a prerequisite for living well within limits. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 20, 2401186 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  96. Brand, U. et al. From planetary to societal boundaries: an argument for collectively defined self-limitation. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 17, 264–291 (2021). The article argues that the concept of planetary boundaries should be supplemented by that of societal boundaries (formulated in transdisciplinary and democratic processes) to better understand the obstacles, experiences and potential with regard to just social–ecological transformations.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Koch, M. The state in the transformation to a sustainable postgrowth economy. Environ. Politics 29, 115–133 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Koch, M. Social policy without growth: moving towards sustainable welfare states. Soc. Policy Soc. 21, 447–459 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Durand, C., Hofferberth, E. & Schmelzer, M. Planning beyond growth: the case for economic democracy within ecological limits. J. Clean. Prod. 437, 140351 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Cherry, C. E. et al. Citizens' Climate Assemblies: Understanding Public Deliberation for Climate Policy (Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations, 2021); https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/145771/1/CITIZENS-CLIMATE-ASSEMBLIES-CAST-July-2021.pdf

  101. Kallis, G. et al. Research on degrowth. Annu. Rev. Environ. Res. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025941 (2018).

  102. O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., Lamb, W. F. & Steinberger, J. K. A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain. 1, 88–95 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. O’Neill, B. et al. in Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (eds Pörtner, H. O. et al.) 2411–2538 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).

  104. Wang, X. & Lo, K. Just transition: a conceptual review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 82, 102291 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Görg, C. et al. (eds) APCC Special Report: Strukturen für ein klimafreundliches Leben (Springer, 2023); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66497-1

  106. Bärnthaler, R., Mang, S. & Hickel, J. Toward a post-growth industrial policy for Europe: navigating emerging tensions and long-term goals. Globalizations https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2025.2501821 (2025).

  107. Ban, C. & Hasselbalch, J. Green economic planning for rapid decarbonisation. N. Polit. Econ. 30, 287–299 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Creative Construction: Democratic Planning in the 21st Century and Beyond (Bristol Univ. Press, 2025); https://doi.org/10.51952/9781529235142

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Ulrich Brand, Alina Brad & Gabriel Eyselein

  2. Humanities Centre for Advanced Studies “Futures of Sustainability”, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Ulrich Brand

  3. Institute for Social Change and Sustainability, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria

    Daniel Hausknost

  4. Department of Human Geography, Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main, Germany

    Mathias Krams

  5. Institute of Social Ecology, BOKU University, Vienna, Austria

    Danyal Maneka & Melanie Pichler

  6. Department of Development Studies, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Etienne Schneider

Authors
  1. Ulrich Brand
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Hausknost
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alina Brad
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gabriel Eyselein
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mathias Krams
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Danyal Maneka
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Melanie Pichler
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Etienne Schneider
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

U.B., D.H., A.B., G.E., M.K., D.M., M.P. and E.S. contributed equally to conceptualizing and writing the article. A.B and E.S. developed the figure. U.B. coordinated the paper-making process.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrich Brand.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Climate Change thanks Espen Moe, Gregory Trencher and Christos Zografos for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brand, U., Hausknost, D., Brad, A. et al. Structural limitations of the decarbonization state. Nat. Clim. Chang. 15, 927–934 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02394-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02394-y

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing