Macroeconomic Implications for Decarbonization Policies and Actions: Proceedings of a Workshop (2025)
Chapter: Breakout Discussions
Breakout Discussions
A series of breakout discussions provided a forum for online and in-person participants to delve deeper into four themes: stakeholders, research and policy synergy, regional differences and barriers, and academic engagement and global decarbonization. Following the breakout sessions, representatives from each group summarized key takeaways from the conversations.
STAKEHOLDERS
Participants considered the following discussion questions around decarbonization stakeholders:
- Who are the primary and secondary communities affected by decarbonization policies, and what kinds of considerations would help make different policies/mixes more desirable to the various perspectives?
- How can we tailor research to address the specific needs and challenges of these broad communities?
- What strategies can be employed to effectively communicate uncertainties in decarbonization research to different stakeholders without undermining trust or policy action?
Bill Dean, California Environmental Protection Agency, and Wendy Edelberg, Brookings Institution, presented their groups’ discussions of stakeholder needs. Recognizing that the term stakeholders could have different meanings, Dean said that participants in his group, which held their discussion virtually, defined stakeholders as anyone whose actions affect others or who is affected by others’ actions. This definition is intentionally broad and inclusive, spanning from CEOs to middle school students. Also on the topic of definitions, group members suggested that it could be useful for researchers to develop a broad definition of “transition” that could be globally applicable.
Turning to the question of research needs related to determining how decarbonization policies will affect stakeholders, participants offered several key takeaways. First, Edelberg said that participants in her group, which held their discussion in person, suggested that it could be useful to examine and model the economic consequences for each sector and each community individually, and to then aggregate the model output to identify spillover effects. Second, Dean said that participants in his group emphasized the importance of researchers communicating honestly and transparently with communities about policy impacts and creating ways to mitigate negative ones. This can be accomplished, they suggested, by including community members and trusted leaders in the entire research process to develop and maintain trust and avoid the perception that researchers are “poking around where they’re not supposed to be.” “Connecting with people is important for developing and maintaining trust,” Dean said. Edelberg added that it is difficult—but crucial—for researchers to effectively communicate uncertainty.
Edelberg said that participants in her group also emphasized that policies are more likely to succeed when stakeholders understand the priorities—such as speed, equity, or cost. This involves defining goals, as well as transparency around the fact that setting more than one priority can constrain the set of options available to choose from, she said.
RESEARCH AND POLICY SYNERGY
Participants considered the following discussion questions around research and policy synergy:
- What are the most critical research gaps that need to be addressed to support decarbonization policies in the next decade?
- How can research be more effectively translated into actionable policy recommendations for achieving climate objectives?
- What role does interdisciplinary research play in shaping comprehensive climate policies, and how can we foster stronger collaborations between scientists and policymakers?
A participant and Weel, Federal Reserve Board, shared key takeaways from their groups. Members of the participant’s group, which held their discussion in person, highlighted the value of designing research questions collaboratively, with local stakeholder input built into the entire process, as opposed to waiting until research is completed and then attempting to translate it to community contexts. Second, they suggested an increased focus on integrating different modeling types and techniques, especially economic and climate modeling, in order to gain more translatable insights that address comparable time frames or questions. They also added that researchers could work to develop more tools to better re-
flect real-world circumstances by accounting for political realities, local specifici-ties, human behavior, and the rapid pace of technological change in order to make research more effective and efficient.
Participants in Weel’s group, who held their discussion virtually, explored two critical research gaps to support decarbonization policies: reducing social, psychological, institutional, and other non-financial barriers; and identifying enabling actions or frameworks, such as AI-based implementations. They added that research into the permanence of CCS is also important. In addition, they suggested that engaging communities of people who tend to take a cautious approach, such as lawyers or engineers, as well as those opposed to climate action could help to strengthen efforts to translate research into actionable policy recommendations.
REGIONAL DIFFERENCES AND BARRIERS
Participants considered the following discussion questions around regional differences and barriers:
- What are the key differences in the decarbonization challenges faced by different parts of the world?
- How can we address unique risks and barriers faced by other nations while ensuring access to opportunities in the green economy?
- What are the barriers for international cooperation in terms of technology transfer, financing, and capacity-building for decarbonization?
Huilin Luo, Princeton University, and Katrina Hui, National Academies, recounted their groups’ discussions. First, participants in Luo’s group, who held their discussion in person, emphasized that each country could find its own balance in navigating distributional implications of climate mitigation efforts. Second, Luo and colleagues suggested that reframing the urgent need for decarbonization in terms of easing climate migration or improving access to critical materials can help to garner support and improve chances of success. In addition, Luo said that participants discussed two areas where further research may be needed, including identifying mechanisms to mobilize international resources to high-need countries to improve collaboration internationally, and improving models to address access issues around critical materials.
Participants in both groups also highlighted the different decarbonization considerations and trajectories in different regions. To ensure that all countries have access to the opportunities presented by decarbonization, participants in Hui’s group, who held their discussion virtually, suggested international collaborations to bridge financing, technology, and capability gaps. In particular, they discussed several key challenges, including a lack of granularity in regional data; the substantial differences between countries’ capabilities and their climate vul-
nerabilities; the potential for biases in international indicators; and the importance of ensuring a just transition for each country.
Finally, participants in Hui’s group also emphasized that terms distinguishing countries by geography are not monoliths; rather, they are loose terms that describe heterogeneous but interrelated regions. It may be more impactful to reframe the discussion in terms of which countries are more or less empowered to make moral and economic decisions for themselves, Hui said.
ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT AND GLOBAL DECARBONIZATION
Participants considered the following discussion questions around academic engagement and global decarbonization:
- What are the current international decarbonization research efforts, and how is U.S. academia currently engaging with these efforts?
- How can U.S. academia foster more impactful partnerships with practitioners, policymakers, and industries both domestically and internationally?
- What are some innovative models for academia-practitioner collaboration that can drive decarbonization research and policy implementation at scale?
Hiba Baroud, Vanderbilt University, summarized several challenges her in-person breakout group explored related to academic engagement and global decarbonization. Building trust with communities is one important area, which participants suggested could benefit from a focus on positively impacting local communities in any research efforts, she explained. Baroud shared that another issue the group discussed is the importance of creating interdisciplinary work that prioritizes local impacts over knowledge generation or career advancement, which can run counter to some of the incentives academic researchers face. Finally, she described how the discussion participants highlighted the challenges related to finding financial support for long-term global projects.
The group also discussed potential solutions to these challenges, Baroud added. She explained that these suggestions include enabling researchers and modelers from high-income countries to collaborate with those from low-income countries to build capacity, creating regional centers to facilitate global research and collaboration, and finding new mechanisms to measure on-the-ground impacts.
