Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

Socio-political feasibility of coal power phase-out and its role in mitigation pathways


In IPCC pathways limiting warming to 1.5 °C, global coal power generation declines rapidly due to its emissions intensity and substitutability. However, we find that in countries heavily dependent on coal—China, India and South Africa—this translates to a national decline twice as rapid as that achieved historically for any power technology in any country, relative to system size. This raises questions about socio-political feasibility. Here we constrain an integrated assessment model to the Powering Past Coal Alliance’s differentiated phase-out timelines of 2030 in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/European Union and 2050 elsewhere which, for large coal consumers, lies within the range of historical transitions. We find that limiting warming to 1.5 °C then requires CO2 emissions reductions in the global North to be 50% more rapid than if this socio-political reality is ignored. This additional mitigation is focused on Europe and the United States, in transport and industry and implies more rapid decline in global oil and gas production.

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

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it


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

Fig. 1: Decline in fossil fuel usage from 2020 to 2030 in IPCC 1.5 °C low-overshoot pathways and in TIAM-UCL.
Fig. 2: Countries’ fastest 10-year declines in a technology’s generation share, 1960–2018 for OECD countries and 1971–2017/18 for non-OECD countries.
Fig. 3: Coal power decline 2020–2030 under climate constraints compared with historical power transitions.
Fig. 4: Energy system implications of PPCA constraint in 1.5 °C scenario.
Fig. 5: CO2 emissions with and without PPCA constraint in the 1.5 °C scenario.

Data availability

The results data and key source data in the figures (including those in Supplementary Information) are available via Zenodo at (ref. 55).

Code availability

The underlying code (mathematical equations) for the model is available via GitHub ( The full model database is also available via Zenodo ( Given the complexity of the model, further guidance will be provided on model assumptions upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.


  1. Hendryx, M. et al. Impacts of coal use on health. Annu. Rev. Publ. Health 41, 397–415 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Spencer, T. et al. The 1.5 °C target and coal sector transition: at the limits of societal feasibility. Clim. Policy 18, 335–351 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. World Energy Balances 2019: Summary Energy Balances (IEA, 2019);

  4. Clarke, L. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Working Group III Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).

  5. Gilabert, P. & Lawford-Smith, H. Political feasibility: a conceptual exploration. Polit. Stud. 60, 809–825 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Geels, F. W. Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: Introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theor. Cult. Soc. 31, 21–40 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wilson, C. & Grubler, A. Lessons from the history of technological change for clean energy scenarios and policies. Nat. Resour. Forum 35, 165–184 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Johnson, N. et al. Stranded on a low-carbon planet: implications of climate policy for the phase-out of coal-based power plants. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90, 89–102 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Seto, K. C. et al. Carbon lock-in: types, causes, and policy implications. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 425–452 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Unruh, G. C. Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Pol. 28, 817–830 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Loftus, P. J. et al. A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about feasibility? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 6, 93–112 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. van Sluisveld, M. A. E. et al. Comparing future patterns of energy system change in 2 °C scenarios with historically observed rates of change. Glob. Environ. Change 35, 436–449 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Napp, T. et al. Exploring the feasibility of low-carbon scenarios using historical energy transitions analysis. Energies 10, 116 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Vinichenko, V. et al. Historical precedents and feasibility of rapid coal and gas decline required for the 1.5 °C target. One Earth 4, 1477–1490 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jewell, J. & Cherp, A. On the political feasibility of climate change mitigation pathways: Is it too late to keep warming below 1.5C? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 11, 621 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jewell, J. et al. Prospects for powering past coal. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 592–597 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Le Quéré, C. et al. Drivers of declining CO2 emissions in 18 developed economies. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 213–217 (2019).

  18. Mehta, U. S. et al. In Pursuit of a Low Fossil Energy Future: Interrogating Social, Political and Economic Drivers and Barriers in India’s Energy Transition (Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2017);

  19. Lamb, W. F. & Minx, J. C. The political economy of national climate policy: architectures of constraint and a typology of countries. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 64, 101429 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Grübler, A. et al. Dynamics of energy technologies and global change. Energy Policy 27, 247–280 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Grubler, A. Energy transitions research: insights and cautionary tales. Energy Policy 50, 8–16 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Geels, F. W. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 31, 1257–1274 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. The End of Coal is in Sight (Powering Past Coal Alliance, 2022);

  24. Fleurbaey, M. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Working Group III Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).

  25. Arbelaez, J. P. & Marzolf, N. C. Power & Possibility: The Energy Sector in Jamaica (InterAmerican Development Bank, 2010);

  26. Keppo, I. et al. Exploring the possibility space: taking stock of the diverse capabilities and gaps in integrated assessment models. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 053006 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pye, S. et al. Modelling ‘Leadership-Driven’ Scenarios of the Global Mitigation Effort (UCL Energy Institute, 2019);

  28. Bi, S. et al. Dynamic evaluation of policy feasibility, feedbacks and the ambitions of COALitions. Nat. Clim. Chang. (2023).

  29. van Beek, L. et al. Anticipating futures through models: the rise of Integrated Assessment Modelling in the climate science-policy interface since 1970. Glob. Environ. Change 65, 102191 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Climate Change Minister Claire Perry Launches Powering Past Coal Alliance at COP23 (PPCA, 2017);

  31. Blondeel, M. et al. Moving beyond coal: exploring and explaining the Powering Past Coal Alliance. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 59, 101304 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Low, S. & Schäfer, S. Is bio-energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) feasible? The contested authority of integrated assessment modeling. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 60, 101326 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Grant, N. et al. The policy implications of an uncertain carbon dioxide removal potential. Joule 5, 2593–2605 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Iyer, G. Diffusion of low-carbon technologies and the feasibility of long-term climate targets. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90, 103–118 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gambhir, A. et al. Assessing the feasibility of global long-term mitigation scenarios. Energies 10, 89 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Li, F. G. N. & McDowall, W. Transparency and quality in modelling energy transitions. In Proc. 8th International Sustainability Transitions Conference (IST 2017) (Chalmers University of Technology, CIIST and STRN, 2017);

  37. Keepin, B. & Wynne, B. Technical analysis of IIASA energy scenarios. Nature 312, 691–695 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Patterson, J. J. et al. Political feasibility of 1.5˚C societal transformations: the role of social justice. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 31, 1–9 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Dooley, K. et al. Co-producing climate policy and negative emissions: trade-offs for sustainable land-use. Glob. Sustain. 1, e3 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ellenbeck, S. & Lilliestam, J. How modelers construct energy costs: discursive elements in Energy System and Integrated Assessment Models. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 47, 69–77 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Stoddard, I. et al. Three decades of climate mitigation: why haven’t we bent the global emissions curve? Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 46, 653–689 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. DeCarolis, J. et al. Formalizing best practice for energy system optimization modelling. Appl. Energy 194, 184–198 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Global coal to clean power transition statement. In UN Climate Change Conference UK 2021 (COP26) (UK Government and United Nations Climate Change, 2021);

  44. Welsby, D. et al. Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5 °C world. Nature 597, 230–234 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Erickson, P. et al. Why fossil fuel producer subsidies matter. Nature 578, E1–E4 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Biomass in a Low-Carbon Economy (CCC, 2018);

  47. Huppmann, D., Rogelj, J., Kriegler, E., Krey, V. & Riahi, K. A new scenario resource for integrated 1.5 °C research. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 1027–1030 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Fuss, S. et al. Negative emissions—part 2: costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063002 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Creutzig, F. et al. Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 7, 916–944 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Integrated Assessment of Global Environmental Change with IMAGE 3.0: Model Description and Policy Applications (PBL, 2014);

  51. Fricko, O. et al. The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: a middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 251–267 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Rogelj, J. et al. Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 325–332 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Marchetti, C. & Nakicenovic, N. The Dynamics of Energy Systems and the Logistic Substitution Model (IIASA, 1979);

  54. IPCC. Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).

  55. Muttitt, G., Price, J., Pye, S. & Welsby, D. Model and results data from socio-political feasibility of coal power phaseout and its role in mitigation pathways. Zenodo (2022).

  56. The Integrated MARKAL-EFOM System (TIMES) – a bottom-up optimization model for energy-environment systems. GitHub (2022).

Download references


We thank S. Bi, R. Bridle, W. McDowall, G. Peters, M. Phillips and S. Raizada for their reviews of the draft manuscript. For J.P. and D.W., this work has been supported by the UK Energy Research Centre Phase 4 (grant no. EP/S029575/1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



G.M. designed the study, with contributions from S.P. G.M. compiled the historical data and conducted the comparison of the phase-out pace. J.P., S.P. and D.W. conducted the TIAM-UCL modelling, with contributions from G.M. S.P. led on the presentation of the modelling results. D.W. led on the Supplementary Information. G.M. led on the drafting of the manuscript, with contributions from all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Greg Muttitt.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Climate Change thanks Gang He and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) 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.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Sections 1–6, including Tables 1–12, Figs. 1 and 2 and additional methodological detail.

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Muttitt, G., Price, J., Pye, S. et al. Socio-political feasibility of coal power phase-out and its role in mitigation pathways. Nat. Clim. Chang. 13, 140–147 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


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