The global shift towards a clean-energy system is much more than just a technological switch – it is a profound transformation of markets, industries and societal behaviours.
This complex undertaking is often characterised by “non-linearity” and “feedback loops”, where small changes can go on to have disproportionately large impacts and where seemingly straightforward paths encounter unexpected roadblocks.
Interventions can be self-amplifying – leading to runaway change, or they can be self-defeating – when progress seems impossible to attain.
Our new policy brief sheds light on these intricate dynamics, which can be overlooked when governments use analytical frameworks based on standard economic thinking.
The brief sets out the most common archetypes of system change and behaviour, as well as the underlying feedback loops that drive them, with the aim of helping policymakers to understand the recurring patterns that can either accelerate or impede progress.
Governments that can recognise these patterns – as well as the ways they can be harnessed or sidestepped – are likely to be better equipped to manage structural change.
This article delves into three key examples from the policy brief, exploring how they are influencing the energy transition and what lessons can be drawn for effective policymaking.
Reinforcing feedback loops
At the heart of the energy transition lies a powerful engine: the reinforcing feedback loops inherent in the development and diffusion of many clean-energy technologies.
This virtuous cycle operates through several mechanisms.
First, “learning by doing”, which means that as more units of a technology, such as solar panels or wind turbines, are produced and deployed, manufacturers and developers become more efficient, processes are refined and costs fall.
Second, economies of scale kick in: as production volumes increase, unit costs decrease due to efficiencies in manufacturing and more developed supply chains.
Finally, wider deployment can trigger network effects and the emergence of complementary innovations. This means that as the adoption of a given technology grows, it can foster an ecosystem of supporting infrastructure, skilled labour and supporting technologies, which can further boost its attractiveness and viability.
Together, these three elements create a powerful reinforcing loop: initial investment drives innovation and cost reduction, which spurs increased demand, attracting further investment.
Solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind turbines are prime examples of this dynamic.
The astonishing growth of solar offers a particularly vivid illustration of the way in which reinforcing feedback loops can blindside experts and policymakers alike.
Solar growth has far exceeded projections made in the early 2000s. Indeed, the world’s actual installed capacity in 2020 was over 700 gigawatts (GW), more than ten times the level expected in outlooks published in 2006, as shown in the figure below.
Global solar deployment has exceeded expectations due to disparate trends and drivers in individual markets that, together, all point in the same direction. China, for instance, met its 2030 target for wind and solar capacity six years ahead of schedule in 2024.
Batteries are also riding this wave, with costs plummeting by around 85% over the past decade as deployment, particularly in road transport, scales up.
However, not all clean-energy technologies benefit from this self-amplifying pattern.
Nuclear power and hydropower, for example, have historically not shown the same rapid cost declines, due to their large, complex and site-specific nature. This contrasts with the smaller, modular and replicable characteristics of technologies, such as solar PV.
This does not negate the potential role of such technologies, but it does mean that they are less likely to see disruptive, exponential and self-reinforcing growth.
There are a number of potential conclusions for policymakers.
Early in the transition, interventions such as feed-in tariffs and public procurement were crucial in kick-starting these reinforcing feedbacks for solar and wind.
As these technologies mature and become cost-competitive, the focus shifts to removing other barriers, such as streamlining permitting processes, investing in grid expansion and reforming markets so they are better able to integrate variable renewable output.
These same principles could now be applied to newly emergent clean-energy technologies. Policies that directly nurture these reinforcing loops, such as deployment subsidies and clean technology mandates, can be expected to be most effective in the initial stages.
Turning again to the example of solar energy, while such initial efforts appeared to be expensive, they paid off over time by unlocking future cost reductions and, thus, kick-starting the self-amplifying feedback loops that are now driving further progress.
This contrasts with the idea that carbon pricing is necessarily the most efficient policy for decarbonisation. It may well be helpful, but as it will not drive rapid early technology adoption, it is less likely to have a self-amplifying effect in the initial stages of the transition.
Renewable ‘cannibalisation’
While the growth of renewable energy is the driving force of the energy transition, another system dynamic, termed “renewable cannibalisation“, can act as a dampening feedback loop. This can potentially slow progress long before full decarbonisation is achieved
This cannibalisation process results in variable renewable energy (VRE) sources, such as solar and wind, receiving decreasing prices for the electricity they generate.
Essentially, the more solar and wind capacity that is connected to the grid, the more they undermine their own revenue. This happens through three main channels.
First, the merit order effect, whereby solar and wind, which have very low operating costs, push more expensive fossil-fuel generators out of the market when supply is abundant.
In markets with marginal pricing, this leads to lower wholesale electricity prices during periods of high renewable output. While this cuts prices for consumers – at least in the short term – these lower prices also reduce revenues for renewable generators, potentially undermining the economic case for further investment.
For example, in California, solar power unit revenues fell by $1.30 per megawatt hour (MWh) for each percentage point increase in solar penetration between 2013 and 2017.
Second, price volatility, where uncertainty over future trends in the generation mix and the balance between supply and demand can make long-term revenues difficult to predict.
This increased uncertainty can raise the cost of capital for new renewable projects, again acting as a brake on investment
The UK, for example, experienced this before the introduction of “contracts for difference” (CfDs), which helped stabilise revenue expectations for renewable developers.
Third, volume risk, where rising VRE capacity increases the likelihood of more frequent curtailment – periods when renewable generation exceeds demand or grid capacity, forcing generators to scale back output and lose potential revenue.
Curtailment in itself is nothing new, but the scale and frequency is changing. Recent analysis by University College London suggests that without significant flexibility or storage, UK renewable generation could exceed demand for more than 50% of the time by 2030.
The analysis found that installed wind and solar capacity is set to surge beyond current levels of electricity demand, as illustrated in the figure below, finding that this could “deter investment” in new projects if no action is taken to address the problem.
These dampening feedback loops illustrate a classic “limits to success” scenario. The very success of renewables, if unmanaged, can create conditions that hinder their continued expansion.
The policy implications here are nuanced. One solution is CfDs, which offer renewable generators a fixed price and have been effective in many countries at mitigating the merit order effect and price volatility, thus maintaining investment.
However, as VRE penetration becomes very high and surplus generation becomes a regular occurrence, other solutions are likely to be needed. This is because existing CfD designs often include clauses that stop payments when market prices drop below zero.
As a result, alternative CfD designs, guaranteeing revenues based on installed capacity or potential – rather than actual – electricity generation might be considered, for example, even though these have other drawbacks.
More fundamentally, our research suggests the solution to this challenge lies in fostering the co-evolution of renewables with technologies such as energy storage and green hydrogen production. These can absorb surplus generation and turn a problem into an opportunity.
Whereas, traditionally, it might be assumed that the market on its own can optimally allocate risk, research suggests that a redesign of market structures may be needed to enable investment and fully realise the cost-saving opportunities of the new technologies.
This is one of several sets of feedbacks discussed in a separate new report published today, looking at the power sector transition in China.
The power of connection
The energy transition is not a series of isolated changes in different sectors. Instead, it is an interconnected system, where progress in one area can catalyse shifts elsewhere. Shared technologies can create reinforcing feedbacks that accelerate decarbonisation across multiple fronts, generating cross-sector synergies.
The relationship between clean power and transport electrification is a powerful example of this. As batteries are deployed at scale in electric vehicles (EVs), their costs fall, enabling ever-wider deployment and further cost declines, as shown in the chart below.
This is due to the learning-by-doing and economies-of-scale feedbacks discussed above.
This cost reduction then makes batteries more viable for grid-scale energy storage, which, in tur, helps integrate more low-cost VRE into the power system.
Cheaper, cleaner electricity then further incentivises the electrification of transport, as well as heating and light industry. This increased electrification boosts demand for renewable power, driving further deployment and cost reductions in solar and wind. It also expands the potential for demand-side response, where consumers adjust their electricity use to help balance the grid.
A similar dynamic is anticipated for “green” hydrogen. As deployment in one anchor sector – perhaps fertilisers or refining – drives down the cost of electrolysers, it makes green hydrogen more competitive for other applications, such as shipping or even long-duration energy storage in the power sector.
Each sector’s adoption of green hydrogen contributes to the shared learning and cost reduction, benefiting all.
The policy implications of these cross-sector synergies could be significant. Their existence suggests, for example, that there is no need to wait for decarbonisation of the power sector to advance further, before beginning the electrification of transport, heating or industry.
This is in contrast to the argument that transport should only be electrified after cutting power sector emissions, since increased EV charging will drive up demand for gas- or coal-fired generation.
While there will be a marginal increase in emissions from plugging a new EV into the power grid, the insights described in our brief imply that it is still likely to be more effective to pursue the transition away from fossil fuels in multiple sectors in parallel, because it can activate beneficial cross-sector feedback loops that are greater than the sum of their parts.
As such, our research suggests that policymakers hoping to take advantage of cross-sector synergies could aim to deliberately strengthen technological linkages between different parts of the energy system. Examples include electricity tariffs and market structures that reward “smart” EV charging and vehicle-to-grid (V2G) services, encouraging industrial participation in demand-side response and promoting integrated home energy systems. These interactions can amplify the benefits of early investment in the transition.
Policy insights from system dynamics
Archetypes such as the self-reinforcing growth of clean technologies, the potential for renewable cannibalisation, the accelerating power of cross-sector synergies and seven others described in our new report paint a picture of a transition that is far from linear. Instead, we find that it is governed by complex interdependencies and feedback loops.
Consequently, our research suggests that policymakers will be much better equipped to manage and steer the transition, if they adopt a systems thinking approach.
Recognising these recurring patterns allows for the design of more robust and effective policies that anticipate challenges and leverage opportunities.
For instance, understanding the power of reinforcing feedback loops in technology diffusion underscores the value of early-stage support for nascent clean-energy technologies.
Conversely, anticipating the dampening effects of renewable cannibalisation highlights the likely benefits of combining renewable buildout with evolving market designs and strategic investments in flexibility solutions, such as storage and demand-side response.
Policymakers that understand and work with these dynamics are likely to be in a better position to spark self-amplifying changes – achieving maximum value for minimum effort – and to avoid self-defeating interventions that go nowhere.
The post Guest post: How ‘feedback loops’ and ‘non-linear thinking’ can inform climate policy appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Guest post: How ‘feedback loops’ and ‘non-linear thinking’ can inform climate policy
Australia’s network of marine parks is the largest in the world, covering more than half (52%) of Australia’s Commonwealth waters. You could be forgiven for assuming that a marine park is much like a national park on land: a highly protected place where people can enjoy nature while conservation efforts help habitats recover and wildlife thrive. You wouldn’t expect someone to bulldoze a national park, so why should they be allowed to bottom trawl in a marine park?
The reality is that not all marine parks are equally protected. Australia’s Marine Parks Network is divided into different zoning categories, with each zone determining which activities are permitted and the level of protection provided.
More than half of the Commonwealth Marine Parks Network allows industrial activities like oil and gas mining, and industrial fishing.
Our survival, and the survival of our planet, depends on the ocean. The ocean produces more oxygen than all of our forests combined, sustains communities and regulates the earth’s temperature. It’s home to wondrous wildlife and important ecosystems like coral reefs and kelp forests.
We love our big blue backyard
Australia’s ocean is teeming with life that is found nowhere else on earth. Schools of colourful fish, vibrant coral reefs, endemic shark nurseries, pods of dolphins, families of whales, playful seal pups and threatened Jurassic-era turtles call Australian waters home.
Since time began, from the turquoise waves to the deep blue, the ocean has connected our shorelines and communities, fed us, guided us and grounded us. We are intrinsically connected to our big blue backyard – more than 85% of us live within 50km of the shoreline. For tens of thousands of years, people have lived in harmony with the ocean and the wildlife within it, caring for and being sustained by its rich waters. Australia’s waters are some of the most unique and abundant places on Earth but our Marine Parks Network is falling short to properly protect them.
Australia’s marine parks aren’t living up to their name
The Australian Commonwealth Marine Parks Network covers commonwealth waters 5.5km from the coast. The network is divided into 7 regional management areas, overall the network contains 60 marine parks. Zoning types determine what activities are allowed in each area. Over half of the network allows industrial activities, risking our most precious and threatened ocean wildlife.
Within many of our marine parks, destructive industries are allowed to fish, trawl, dig and mine using barbaric and cruel methods. Here are some of the zones explained:
- Bottom Trawling: Special Purpose (trawl) zones allow bottom trawling. This covers 10 marine parks totalling almost 13 million hectares. Bottom trawlers bulldoze the seafloor with weighted nets, deforesting our underwater forests; a cruel, indiscriminate and inefficient way to fish.
- Other Industrial Fishing: Includes “Habitat Protection Zones, ““Multi Use Zones” and “Special Purpose Zones.” Fishing methods vary from park to park but many marine parks in these zones allow industrial fishing like longlining. Longlining involves setting lines that can be 100km long, bristling with deadly hooks designed to catch a specific fish species. But longlining is not a selective method of fishing – significant numbers of sharks, rays, turtles, dolphins and seabirds can be harmed or killed as bycatch in the process.
- Oil and Gas Mining: Many “Special Purpose” and “Multi Use” zones allow seismic blasting and oil and gas mining. 30 marine parks or 65 million hectares of Australia’s highest conservation value areas for ocean wildlife are open for mining and exploration of oil and gas.
- Ocean Sanctuaries: National Park and Sanctuary zones are fully and highly protected marine parks designed to conserve wildlife and their habitat, where fishing, mining, and other industrial activities are not allowed.
Industrial fishing is one of the biggest threats to the ocean
In May, Greenpeace Australia Pacific sailed our campaigning vessel Oceania through some of Australia’s most beautiful and threatened marine parks. Our crew visited Jervis and Hunter marine parks to document their beauty, showcase what’s at risk and aim to expose the industrial fishing activities in these protected waters. Both of these marine parks allow bottom trawling and longlining methods of industrial fishing.
Industrial fishing is ripping the ocean apart across the planet. Longlining, also known as longline fishing, is an industrial fishing method that involves the use of a fishing line with thousands of baited hooks. These fishing lines can stretch over 100 kilometers in length and are set to capture a fish species, often tuna or billfish species. But it is not a selective method of fishing and often results in significant bycatch. This includes a range of non-target species like sharks, rays, sea turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds which are often injured or killed as bycatch.
Bottom trawling involves dragging heavy weighted nets along the ocean floor. This fishing method is popular with commercial fishing companies, because it makes it easy to catch large quantities of fish in one go. But it also damages the seafloor, releasing carbon and can kill or injure non-target ocean life like coral, fur seals, dolphins and seabirds. You may have watched the reality of bottom trawling (and the benefits of ocean sanctuaries) in Ocean with David Attenborough, if not, add it to your watch list!
Fully protected ocean sanctuaries that ban industrial fishing and mining can protect ocean wildlife and underwater wonderlands for generations to come. Vast, robust sanctuaries create blue havens where ocean wildlife are safe from nets and hooks, and can truly rest, recover, thrive and replenish out into the surrounding waters. Ocean sanctuaries ensure a healthy ocean full of life.
A once-in-a-decade chance to fix what’s falling short
We have a unique opportunity to turn the tide.
The Australian Government is asking for your feedback on how our Commonwealth Marine Parks Network is managed. This is our once-in-a-decade chance to protect ocean wildlife, ban industrial fishing and create more ocean sanctuaries.
As part of the review the Government is asking for submissions from the public to hear from you on what improvements are needed to better protect our vast network of marine parks. Writing a submission is a powerful way to influence government decisions and create real change.
This is the moment to ban industrial activities like bottom trawling and oil and gas mining. But only if they hear from YOU. Add your name!
Greenpeace is calling on the Australian government to:
1. Ban industrial activities from Australia’s Marine Parks Network: Ban industrial activities, such as industrial fishing, seismic blasting and oil and gas mining, from Australia’s marine parks.
2. Create more ocean sanctuaries: Increase fully protected sanctuaries in Australia’s marine parks based on science principles.
3. Connect Australia’s Marine Parks Network to the High Seas: mCreate seascape connectivity by linking Australian marine parks to new high seas ocean sanctuaries.
References
Substantiation that more than half of the Marine Parks Network permits industrial activity comes from a peer-reviewed systematic literature review (Phillips et al. 2025, PLOS One, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307324). The study found that within the Commonwealth Marine Parks Network specifically, “all zones are considered partially protected areas, meaning areas where extractive activities are permitted, except ‘Pink zones’ (Preservation Zones; IUCN Ia) and ‘Green Zones’ (IUCN II).” In other words, every Commonwealth marine park zone type other than the network’s strict no-take sanctuary and national park zones (IUCN Ia and II) permits some form of extractive industrial activity. Since no-take zones are the minority zone type across the network by area, this supports the conclusion that the majority of the network’s area is zoned to permit industrial activity.
DCCEEW Australian Marine Parks spatial dataset (https://fed.dcceew.gov.au/datasets/erin::australian-marine-parks/explore), filtered by zone type. This confirms that 38.43% of the network’s area is zoned as Sanctuary or National Park zones (IUCN Ia and II). These are the no-take categories excluded from the peer-reviewed study’s definition of partially protected/industrial-permitting zones. The remaining 61.57% of the network falls within the zone categories the study classifies as permitting industrial activity (per The MPA Guide definition of “industrial” applied in Phillips et al. 2025), directly corroborating the peer-reviewed finding with current Commonwealth-specific spatial data.
For further information on activities permitted within the Marine Parks Network Zoning, you can refer to the Management Plans zoning and rules for each Marine Parks Network area, for example: Temperate East, Coral Sea, North.
A new report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific advocates for the closure of bottom trawling in Australia’s Commonwealth Marine Parks Network. Bottom trawling continues to be a pervasive threat to ocean life in Australia, with 10 marine parks totalling almost 13 million hectares, allowing bottom trawling.
Australia’s network of marine parks, which is the biggest in the world, covers more than half (52%) of Australia’s Commonwealth domestic waters, but not all parks are created equal. Australia’s Marine Parks Network is divided into different zoning categories, with each zone determining which activities are permitted and the level of protection provided. More than half of the Marine Parks Network allow industrial activities like industrial fishing and oil and gas mining. This includes zoning types that allow destructive fishing by longliners and bottom trawlers, who pillage underwater wonderlands, rip up coral and indiscriminately and violently catch any animal in their path, including turtles, seals and dolphins, all within areas labelled a marine park.
The Federal government has commenced a review into the majority of Australia’s Commonwealth Marine Parks Network management plans. This presents an opportunity to ban industrial activities from our marine parks and create more ocean sanctuaries.
© Harriet Spark / Grumpy Turtle Film / Greenpeace
The banner drop is a distinctive part of the Greenpeace repertoire.
The moment of the unfolding is intrinsically dramatic. It is the reveal; when the moral and scientific truth of a situation is unveiled to the world. The wrong is being labelled—not through a written submission, or a social media post, or a statement in a meeting—but in words emblazoned in real physical space, chosen and occupied with precision, for all to see. There is jeopardy and transgression. And there are consequences—for the activists and for Greenpeace, as well as for the target of the communication. One of the reasons the banner remains such an effective tool in our toolbox is because of its undeniable clarity in cutting through, driving change and accountability in a way that few other tactics can. It is naming the wrong: in giant, clear letters.
We’ve hung these massive messages at environmental crime scenes, corporate headquarters, and iconic landmarks; on government buildings, ships and planes—in locations all around the world, for years.
My own memories unfurl even as I write this, but because the campaign to stop Woodside at Scott Reef is so pressing, what immediately springs to mind are two of our banners in that campaign: one on a crane outside their Perth HQ, and another on some of their corroding industrial junk at sea. What about you? Is there a particular banner that you picture when you think of Greenpeace?
The banners can attract global attention, but they have quiet beginnings. Each one is made by hand, often by volunteers. It is the invisible labour behind each spectacular public moment. One of the key pieces of equipment in our workshop at Rainbow Warrior House is the sewing machine. Sometimes our workshop is full of people and noise; at others it is quiet, the only sound being the gentle, purposeful, whir and buzz of a banner being sewn. It is usually our warehouse manager, Kieran Holmes, on the tools, head over the machine, carefully pouring over the raw canvas or tarp as the banner takes shape. Kieran’s one of those people who seems to be able to turn his hand to almost anything, but you wouldn’t know it because he’s old-school modest. In addition to being incredibly skilled, Kieran’s an all-round beaut human to have in the heart of our headquarters; never too busy to take the time to show a newcomer, or curious visitor, around his domain.
Once the banner is sewn up, the lettering needs to be outlined. This is done on a magnetic wall—a fit-for-purpose feature at Rainbow Warrior House, where the banner is held up with magnets, and the edges of the letters neatly traced from a projection.
Next comes the painting. It usually starts late in the afternoon, sometimes going into evenings and weekends, with volunteers, staff, mates crowded around, brushes in hand. It is a calming meditative feeling of shared purpose, giving each letter its visual heft, the colour building power and presence with each stroke.
Then you stand back, stretch, and look at the message, now ready.
S A V E S C O T T R E E F
Throughout history, every great push for social change has required some form of invisible labour; preparation in the form of quiet things seldom seen, but vital. It is the enabling work of love instantiated in action. And of course, so much of the time it has been women who have done this labour, so that the men could get the chance to make the speeches and stand on the podiums. The inaugural Greenpeace voyage to stop nuclear testing in 1971 had a male-only crew, but wouldn’t have happened without the ideas and work of women behind the scenes.
It is what we do together, after all, that changes the world. Sometimes that work happens on a stage, a ship on the wild seas, or up the side of a building. But mostly, it is the hidden diligence of those who care and contribute to all the enabling work that makes a change once thought impossible, inevitable. It is Kieran at his sewing machine. It was Dorothy Stowe doing the administrative work of the ‘Don’t Make A Wave Committee’ that became Greenpeace.
When we think of social change, it is the sturm and drang that we remember. The drop of the banner, the chant of the crowd, the raising of the new flag. But look behind the curtain, and there’ll be a crew of people who are taking responsibility for the administration, the sewing and the painting, making the food, checking the bus timetables, getting stuff done. And behind them are even more handsinvisibly donating time and trust; the financial, material and expert resources that make it all possible. There’s love, camaraderie and know-how at every stage.
We are social and cooperative creatures by nature. And we human beings have been stitching for millenia, sewing the possibilities of our common future. Political and corporate bullies and algorithmically manipulative platforms would have us forget this, and abandon who we are. But we should be in no doubt that the brighter prospects for ourselves and life on earth continue to be stitched and painted; collaboratively and with love, by the diligent hands of millions of people who care, each day, in every community and city across the world.
With Love,
David
Q & A
I always get great questions when interviewing prospective new team members. One that came up again recently was: “Is Greenpeace actually one organisation?”
Around the world, people know Greenpeace by our one global name, united by a shared mission: securing an Earth capable of nurturing life in all its magnificent diversity, with a particular focus on climate and biodiversity. Behind the scenes, though, we’re organised as a network of 25 legally autonomous national and regional offices, including Greenpeace Australia Pacific, working alongside Greenpeace International.
That structure gives us the best of both worlds: we work together leveraging the power of a global network on the issues that matter most, while each office remains legally independent and deeply connected to the communities, cultures and political realities where we’re embedded. Local knowledge informs global action, and global collaboration strengthens and supports local campaigns.
It’s a model that has enabled Greenpeace to take on some of the world’s biggest challenges for over five decades–while withstanding challenges and attacks from governments and corporations. Global enough to tackle global problems, local enough to understand our communities and the natural places we love.
If you’re curious to learn more, you can read about the Greenpeace Global Network structure here.
-
Climate Change12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits