Journal Pre-proof

Equitable energy transition in Latin America and the Caribbean:

Reducing inequity by building capacity

Nora Hampl

PII: S2667-095X(22)00019-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rset.2022.100035
Reference: RSET 100035

To appear in: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Transition

Received date: 31 January 2022

Revised date: 15 August 2022
Accepted date: 18 August 2022

Please cite this article as: Nora Hampl , Equitable energy transition in Latin America and the
Caribbean: Reducing inequity by building capacity, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Transition
(2022), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rset.2022.100035

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Title: Equitable energy transition in Latin America and the Caribbean: Reducing inequity by building capacity
Author: Nora Hampl
Affiliation: Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, Universitätsstraße 7, 1010 Vienna, Austria

E-mail address: norah16@univie.ac.at

ORCID: 0000-0002-0862-9327

Highlights

• Climate-energy partnerships should focus on solving pre-existing challenges (SDGs 9, 10 &16)

• Improve local capabilities to ensure localized benefits over the long term
• Establish Research & Training Centers (RTCs) as a platform for climate-energy research & practice
• Require techno-economic energy planning to include alignment with social and ecological systems
• Avoid energy trajectories with a likely lock-in for high-carbon energy pathways

Abstract

The study evaluates links between the unfolding energy transition in Latin America and the Caribbean and
sustainable development goals (SDGs) relating to innovation (SDG 9), equality (SDG 10), and institutions (SDG
16). The study argues that if energy technology choices in the region continue to be driven by techno-economic
rationality, many demands put upon the energy transition will remain unmet, namely, solving the pre-existing
challenges (SDGs 9, 10, and 16). Unequal access – to education, training, and capabilities that could make local
livelihoods more resilient, will preclude synergies between the latest renewable energy science, cross-sectoral
innovation, and equitable institutions, in the end compromising local and regional potential, creativity and
productivity. Additionally, given the unique, biodiversity-rich contexts of Latin America, energy technology choices
need to account for context-specific climate and ecological imperatives. For the energy transition to be equitable and
climate-compatible, the study concludes that new ways of integrating and acting on inter- and transdisciplinary
knowledge need to be conceptualized and implemented in practice. This entails creating an interface between local
communities (Indigenous and community knowledge), research community (local and international climate-energy
knowledge), and policy-makers (policy knowledge).
The proposed concept of Research & Training Centers (RTCs) fills the gap, as it serves as an umbrella institution for
collaborative learning across a spectrum of disciplines, transdisciplinary collaborations, and implementation of
specific climate-compatible solutions. RTC’s integrative forms of research can be directed to help overcome pre-
existing gaps and vulnerabilities, and simultaneously promote equitable energy transition and decarbonization
pathways compatible with the region’s ecological systems.

Keywords
Latin America and the Caribbean, LAC, climate change, ecological systems, integrative energy research, energy
solutions, transition, renewable energy, the Paris Agreement, sustainable development goals, Indigenous knowledge,
innovation, learning, capabilities, equity, transdisciplinary, interdisciplinary

List of abbreviations
CELAC (Community of 33 Latin American and Caribbean States; excludes Brazil; comprises 18 Spanish-speaking
countries, 12 English-speaking countries, 1 French-speaking country, 1 Dutch speaking country)
CSP (Concentrated Solar Power)
DUI (Doing, Using, Interacting)
ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean)
FDI (Foreign Direct Investment)
F-gases (Fluorinated gases, include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen
trifluoride)
GHG emissions (Greenhouse Gas Emissions)
ICSU (International Council for Science)
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
ISSC (International Social Science Council)
LAC (Latin America and the Caribbean)
LULUCF (Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry)
NAMA (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action)
RD&I (Research, Development & Innovation)
RTC (Research & Training Centers)
SDG (Sustainable Development Goals)
SIDS (Small Island Developing States)
STI (Science, Technology & Innovation)
TA (Technology Assessment)
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)
ANNEX-I countries (“industrialized”, “developed” and “economies in transition”)
NON-ANNEX-I countries (“developing countries”, most of which are low-income economies, especially vulnerable
to climate change, in need of investment, capacity building, technology transfer; under Paris Agreement; both
Annex-I and Non-Annex-I countries are under the same reporting requirements)

1. Introduction

As a world region, LAC is still a world leader in clean energy use. It is also a region with a high
concentration of cities severely impacted by climate change. Climate vulnerability manifests in both urban and rural
areas (in heat extremes, changing precipitation, declines in hydrological systems’ viability, and erosion of natural
habitats and biodiversity). Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are among the most climate vulnerable countries in
the world, while in the Caribbean the climate crisis and sea level rise have become direct existential threats [1]. Even
though climate compatible energy transition is deemed essential for slowing down the pace of climate change, it is
currently at risk due to the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic [2,3], exacerbated by Russia’s war against
Ukraine and the subsequent boom in fossil-fuel energy markets.
Many countries in the region are deciding between “race to zero-carbon” (decarbonizing their economies)
and “race to the bottom” (energy-intensive development), in which “race” refers to a competition over LAC
jurisdictions with the lowest cost of negative externalities (i.e., lowest social and environmental governance
standards) [4,5]. Inevitably, “race to the bottom” would exacerbate the pre-existing regional challenges, generalized
in this study as LAC’s lowest scoring sustainable development goals [6]: SDG 9—by defaulting to outdated industry
processes and standards, SDG 10—by further entrenching inequality, and SDG 16—by institutional failure to
protect public interest. Redirecting LAC economic recoveries toward energy transition that takes account of the pre-
existing challenges would have the advantage of not only cutting emissions, but potentially also reducing inequality,
strengthening industry standards, and improving institutions. By contrast, supporting business-as-usual model
implies replicating the flaws that were found to lead to inefficiencies at multiple levels, including the inefficiency of
inequality [7,8].

1.1. Fossil fuels or renewables, or both?

Even though per capita CO2 emissions are still lower in LAC than in the rest of the world, the growing
energy demand—double that of world average—prompts a question of whether the increase will be met by an
increase in fossil fuel energy production and supply, or predominantly by renewables [9]. The expansion of
megacities has resulted in greater consumption of fossil fuels, contributing to high levels of ambient pollution, poor
health, and environmental degradation. Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean still rely heavily on fossil fuels,
and other countries are beginning to replace renewables with fossil fuels, particularly in electricity production [10].
Gas-fired generation is the most significant source of electricity after hydropower, accounting for 25% of power
generation [11]. High dependence on imported fossil fuels (liquid petroleum and derivatives, and natural gas) in the
Caribbean SIDS, where up to 90% of commercial energy is supplied by imported petroleum (Trinidad and Tobago,
Suriname, Curacao, Jamaica and others), lead to inefficiency in the procurement and use of energy resources, as
high percentages of GDP are being spent on imported fossil fuels [12].
To decouple economic growth from GHG emissions and harmful F-gases, the carbon intensity of the main
emitting sectors (fuel combustion, agriculture, and LULUCF) need to be drastically reduced to reach Paris
Agreement targets. This implies transforming the energy matrix to higher shares of renewable and shifting to clean
electricity, instead of investing in additional coal-fired or gas-fired power plants.
Renewable energy is now the least-costly option in the power sector (Fig. 1.). Variable renewable energy
(VRE) is driving the ongoing decarbonization of the power sector, reshaping the operation of the electricity system
[13,14]. While a rapid growth in VRE will help improve energy efficiency and alleviate fuel security concerns
(where renewable energy sources are locally available), it will require a simultaneous increase of flexibility in power
systems, where distributed PV is expected to replace the currently used fossil-fuel powered plants, motivated in part
by the sharp decrease in cost of renewable energy (Fig. 2.). For example, if all 31 countries in the Caribbean sub-
region (mostly small island states) move to 90% clean energy by 2030, this will not only benefit human and
environmental health, but also result in annual savings of 9 billion USD in fuel costs [12].
New technologies and energy products (e.g., dispatchable generation, demand response, storage,
digitalization and interconnection) are yet to be implemented to accommodate such increases, others are under
development, or in demonstration phase [15]. Several countries such as Costa Rica, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and
Dominican Republic have made progress with regards to distributed generation, even though the regulatory
framework requires further development and normative and bureaucratic barriers still need to be lifted [16]. Put
differently, LAC countries can help steer energy innovation underpinned by a rapid uptake of renewables or fast
decarbonization of the gas sector, in turn increasing productivity and energy efficiency while reducing costs, but
given the complexity of the challenges that come with the energy transition, the following question arises – are
governments and communities capacitated to navigate the energy transition, while recognizing the full scope of
challenges and opportunities?

2. Method

To answer the related question – how (in which ways) can governments and communities become
capacitated to navigate the energy transition, while recognizing the full scope of challenges and opportunities?,
analytical concepts used in transition research were drawn upon to develop a capacity-building framework for LAC
countries as global climate-energy partnerships (SDGs 13 & 17). Climate-compatible energy transition requires not
only the timely and continuous integration of energy research, but also new ways of organizing and enacting
knowledge from other disciplines. This inter- and transdisciplinary research framework is not yet formalized, neither
within formal academic and research institutions, nor in their interactions with other institutions and societal actors.
The proposed concept of Research & Training Centers (RTCs) fills this science-policy gap in LAC’s energy
transition, serving as an umbrella institution for collaborative learning across a spectrum of disciplines,
transdisciplinary collaborations, and implementation of specific climate-compatible energy solutions.
RTCs at national levels are proposed as platforms for creative and productive interactions between different
forms of knowledge [3]:
a) national and international climate & energy research community (latest science & technology knowledge)
b) climate & energy practitioners (private and public sector policy knowledge)
c) local communities (community, traditional, or indigenous knowledge)
As research and training organizations, RTCs apply energy research and related interdisciplinary
knowledge to solve specific challenges (e.g., using renewable energy to provide safe drinking water, or enhance the
energy-water-food-climate nexus overall), while at the same time addressing societal challenges embedded in
specific contexts. “Societal challenges” in this study refer to LAC’s shared challenges, expressed through SDG
indicators, but can alternatively derive from other sets of indicators and data points assembled via scaled-down data
collection at sub-national levels. In this way, RTCs can serve as a platform to communicate, demonstrate, and
implement broad-spectrum, interdisciplinary approaches in solving complex challenges at sub-national, regional, or
national level.
The study proceeds as follows. Introduction (Section 1) outlines the scope of the study and defines the
research issue (i.e., the relation between the energy transition and regional challenges, expressed in SDGs 9, 10, 16).
Method section (Section 2) describes how is the study structured, and how the proposed RTC concept contributes to
capacity-building for navigating the energy transition in the LAC region. State of research (Section 3) discusses
theoretical perspectives and cross-disciplinary concepts as they relate to the proposed concept of Research
&Training Centers (RTCs), including transdisciplinary knowledge in energy transition (Section 3.1), Science,
Technology & Innovation (STI) in energy transition (3.2.), and renewable energy in interdisciplinary research (3.3.)
and international research collaboration (3.4.). Contribution of this study to the research field of renewable and
sustainable energy transition is described next (Section 3.5.). The implications of sustainable and renewable energy
transition, challenges, opportunities and drivers are discussed in Results (Section 4), including challenges for fossil-
fuel resource-abundant economies (Section 4.1.), opportunities in partnering, technology transfer, and capacity
building (Section 4.2.) and opportunities that could be pursued through NAMA partnering (section 4.3.). The RTC
concept is corroborated in Discussion (Section 5, Section 5.1., Section 5.1.1.), where RTC is conceptualized as a
platform bridging sub-national, national and global partnership in research (SDG 17) (Section 5.1.2.), as a center of
eco-innovation (5.1.3.), as a knowledge interlocutor (5.1.4.), and an interface between western and Amerindian
value and knowledge systems (5.1.5.).
Conclusions and recommendations for LAC governments are summarized in Conclusions (6.1.1., 6.1.2.).

3. State of research

Proponents of green post-COVID recoveries argue that a policy push for climate-compatible energy transition,
aligned with both the Paris Agreement and SDGs, presents a unique opportunity for a multidimensional transition
toward renewable and sustainable energy [4,5,14,17,18]. For the LAC region in particular, this brings an opportunity
for leapfrogging and revamping the entire energy matrix, by replacing fossil fuels with renewables and
decarbonizing the economy. This policy push would imply ending subsidies for fossil fuel companies, and linking
energy companies’ rescue packages to project portfolios that reflect firm commitments to decarbonization,
divestment from fossil fuels, and a greater focus on the development of renewable energy solutions, as well as
shifting to employment and services in the clean energy industry. The directionality of the recovery funding,
however, reflected an opposite trend in 2021 (Fig. 3.). LAC governments, particularly those endowed with fossil-
fuel resources, are weighing the costs and benefits of oil production against emission reduction, carbon credits, and
diversification of fossil-fuel dominated portfolios into renewable products and RD&I investments. Moreover, due to
fossil fuel scarcities resulting from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, high revenues from fossil-fuel exports serve to
further disentivize bold investment in renewables for net exporters of fossil-fuels (i.e., Venezuela, Colombia,
Ecuador, Bolivia, Trinidad and Tobago, and Guyana), and/or governments that earn disproportionately more from
carbon-intensive sources than renewables (i.e., Ecuador – 28% compared to 2.3%, Mexico – 23% compared to 7%,
Peru – 12% compared to 4.6%, Colombia – 10% compared to 0.89%). Yet the full range of costs and benefits over
time, as well as the value of opportunities lost, while not fully known, should be thoroughly explored, as the
research continues to evolve, and with it, criteria for funding, which prioritizes certain types of approaches over
others. The task at hand is to ensure that the unfolding climate-compatible energy transition takes advantage of best
opportunities available, but also addresses pre-existing challenges (SDGs 9, 10, and 16), and accounts for risks to
LAC’s high biodiversity.

3.1. Transdisciplinary knowledge in energy transition

At the global level, there is an urgent need for climate and energy researchers and scientists to engage with
societal challenges and communicate the findings to broader audiences within and outside of their countries, and in
this way contribute more directly to the energy transition [19,20]. Because of the risks and already experienced
impacts of climate change, there is now an even greater need for researchers and scientists, particularly in the field
of renewable energy, to take up transdisciplinary research (often referred to as “practice”) with multiple
stakeholders, and engage in both project demonstration and implementation. Research in science, technology and
innovation (STI) including eco-innovation greatly advanced over the last two decades, and has been embraced by
sustainable development practitioners, academics and policymakers alike [21]. However, since climate science
predominantly represents a western scientific knowledge of climate change, it remains de-linked from the diversity
of local Indigenous knowledges that reflect unique experiences of Indigenous communities with local ecosystems
[22]. In LAC’s Indigenous regions, the interface between western and non-western ways of understanding the
changing climate could contribute to improved methodologies for addressing adaptation and mitigation efforts, as
well as place-based, climate-compatible energy solutions. Western perspectives, underpinned by STI’s technological
and economic rationalities that guide energy technology choices, could greatly benefit by engaging non-western
perspectives and Amerindian ontologies, including concepts of Nature as a system [23], and relations of reciprocity,
respect, and responsibility toward non-human nature [24,25]. Most importantly, transdisciplinary practice can enable
learning at multiple levels, and in this way facilitate dissemination of different forms of knowledge, contributing to
societal intelligence [26]. Countries that will have the knowledge, organizational structure, and problem-solving
capacity will be better able to respond to future challenges and scarcities, and – needless to say – a better ability to
navigate the energy transition.

3.2. Science, Technology & Innovation (STI) in LAC’s energy transition

Renewable and sustainable energy transition, not unlike sustainability and sociotechnical transition, is
premised upon fundamental changes in policies, markets, technologies, organization, and social behavior [26],
which in turn require re-examining value systems and assumptions implicit in technological and economic
rationality. New methodologies are currently being developed so that cross-sectoral, comprehensive approaches in
national planning can be implemented. System-level approaches to learning in specialized (siloed) research fields,
including novel interdisciplinary approaches are yet to be devised for scientists to engage in societally relevant
research (e.g., mission-oriented innovation) [27].
Thus far, the application of STI in LAC’s development has had mixed impacts. Often directly damaging
ecosystems and natural habitats in “sacrifice zones”, STI applications in extractive development including energy
supply (e.g., fossil fuel and mineral extraction) are seen as not tasked with resolving local challenges nor enhancing
wellbeing of local communities. STI in critical perspectives is interpreted as contributing to exclusion, silencing,
marginalization and cultural erasure, particularly as experienced by LAC’s Indigenous communities [28-30].
Technology applied in resource-rich regions co-produced and further embedded social-economic, environmental and
ecological inequity, which often made local livelihoods even more difficult to maintain. Unequal shares of negative
externalities (e.g., loss of rights over water, pollution and contamination of air, water, and soil, and non-remediated
toxic landscapes) offloaded onto local communities living near sites of extraction contributed to qualitative aspects
of multidimensional rural poverty. Instead of bringing improvement (i.e, safe drinking water, zero-carbon/zero-
pollution cooking appliances, heating, and cooling solutions, enhancing food security and ecological food systems),
STI including energy technologies, contributed to degradation of local environments and nature’s wealth. In
summary, the dual potential of STI in the region’s development is well understood; on the one hand, STI can
exacerbate conflict, violence, inequality, regime incumbency, and persistent poverty. On the other, under specific
conditions, STI can contribute to improved human and Nature’s wellbeing, peaceful society, equitable development
and structural change.

3.3. Renewable energy in interdisciplinary research

Research in renewable energy and renewable technology is currently flourishing and resurfacing in
different disciplines, particularly in disciplines related to sustainability transition. This is primarily due to the
urgency of climate change, to which energy-intensive modes of production and living greatly contribute, but also in
relation to all additional benefits renewable energy could bring aside from providing electricity, including the
creation of place-based, circular bioeconomies powered by non-polluting renewable resources. Unlike fossil fuels,
renewable energy has the potential to contribute to the improvement of human and environmental wellbeing
simultaneously [31]. Urban air pollution and black carbon (soot) are associated with both cardiovascular and
respiratory disease, and exposure to harmful levels of pollutants resulting from fossil-fuel production and use has
been linked to premature deaths and losses in productivity [32,33]. Particulate matter and ground level ozone were
also found responsible for an estimated 7.4 million tonnes in yield losses of soybean, maize, wheat, and rice [34]. A
broad range of negative externalities resulting from fossil-fuel exploitation, transport, production and consumption
(e.g., air pollution, hazardous waste, costly bioremediation, toxic spills and waste tailings, accidents and ecological
damage at sights of extraction and along pipelines), become reduced simultaneously with risks such activities and
processes pose for human and environmental health when renewables replace fossil fuels. In this way, renewable
energy may be envisioned as a key component in future capacity to address emerging challenges resulting from
unsustainable modes of production and living, particularly as they become untenable within the context of climate-
challenged future.

3.4. International research collaboration

When measured by the region’s publications and citations indexed in the Web of Science, LAC’s
international research collaborations are increasing while regional collaboration remains relatively small. Because
many issues including climate change and pollution are shared by many countries in the region, countries would
benefit by joint research on shared regional issues. The most frequent research partnerships include the United
States, followed by Spain, Brazil, U.K., Germany, France, and China [35]. Transnational collaborations are likely to
enhance the quality of scientific research output, but also increase societal relevance of science, with benefits felt
across different societal groups and sectors. In addition to providing opportunities for inter- and crossdisciplinary
research collaborations, universities and research institutes can provide support for energy transition by developing
new methodologies, sub-disciplines, new research fields, and innovative research practices. Still, the extent to which
these will drive the energy transition in the LAC region remains unclear. Put differently, while novel and
transformational thinking may continue to flourish within educational and research institutions, and even become
shared across what some literature refers to as “the Global North and South” (e.g., via open science), the specific
contexts under which this knowledge and mode of thinking become implemented in the processes of renewable and
sustainable energy transition, is an emergent research question that requires further analysis.

3.5. Contribution

The contribution of this research article is twofold. First, the study informs literature that explores the
relevance of STI knowledge for energy research and practice in the LAC region, specifically, in relation to
renewable and sustainable energy transition in the context of climate change and SDG coherence. Since climate
change is a cross-boundary issue, it is assumed that inter- and transdisciplinary research engagements will become
increasingly global and/or cross-border, and include countries in the LAC region, particularly those that are most
vulnerable to climate events. While researchers may not have considered these options due to institutional
constraints in the past (e.g., organizational structure and funding), new organizational and incentive structures can be
put in place to motivate researchers and scientists to pursue societally-relevant, climate-compatible energy research
globally. To this effect, the study develops a concept of a collaborative research and training institution (RTC),
intended to become an integral part of national innovation system capacity in the LAC region.
As a second contribution, this study proposes to radically re-conceptualize the way science and human
talent are applied in cross-border cooperation, and used to communicate, demonstrate, and implement state-of-the-
art renewable energy solutions in ecologically and socially complex contexts. Since science and research
communities are mostly excluded from arenas where political choices about energy development are made, the latest
scientific knowledge (e.g., renewable energy, interdisciplinary energy research, social science energy research, or
new methodologies for system-level problem solving) become inscribed neither in policy design, nor projects
themselves [3]. In turn, this precludes synergies between SDG 7 (latest low-carbon energy science) [36], SDG 9
(innovation), SDG 10 (equality), and SDG 16 (improved institutions). Unequal local access to capabilities and
opportunities compromises innovation and productivity (SDG 9) [8], but also obstructs progress towards SDGs 10
and 16. Because research frameworks linking STI and development studies in “the Global South”, specifically
focused on innovation and production capabilities in renewable energy and renewable electrification (e.g., wind and
solar PV, value chains, DUI) remain under-explored [37], this study in part bridges the gap.

4. Results

4.1. Regional challenges: abundant fossil fuel supply

Net zero pledges and calls for phasing out/phasing down fossil fuels pose major challenges for Latin
America’s oil industry, mainly because the region has world’s second largest oil reserves (after Middle East) [38].
Fossil fuels remain a big source of revenue for LAC governments, whereas revenues from sustainable sources come
mostly from international aid. Participation in the exploration and exploitation of major oil reserves, particularly
along the Atlantic coast (Suriname, Guyana) by world oil and energy companies continues. Guyana is anticipated to
become the largest per-capita oil producer in the world by 2050, producing 750,000 barrels per day [39], with a
projected 2022 annual growth of around 50% (compared to a regional average estimate of 1.8%). In some
economies, LAC’s national oil companies perform a key role in the macroeconomic stability of the region (via
revenue and taxation, foreign exchange receipts, FDI, and as issuers of foreign debt). Rapid decarbonization is thus
perceived to have destabilizing effects on economies most reliant on revenues from oil rents, specifically,
Venezuela, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Colombia and Guyana.

4.1.1. Risk of stranded assets

 Shifts toward a new energy order, brought about by climate and decarbonization imperatives, further
enabled by STI, are dramatically changing the landscape of the international political economy of oil, drastically
rewriting its longer-term outlook toward greater short-term volatility and long-term declining trend [40]. While
LAC’s emissions from lifetimes operations of existing fossil-fueled power plants are estimated at 6.9 Gt of CO2,
new additions (i.e., fossil-fueled power plants that are under construction, procured, or authorized) would double the
emissions, adding another 6.7 Gt of CO2, in effect exceeding climate targets [41]. Taking LAC’s climate targets into
account (e.g., average IPCC assessment of cumulative emissions from power generation), 10%-16% of existing
fossil-fueled power plants amounting to $27-$55 billion would need to be “stranded” (decommissioned) to meet the
IPCC average carbon budgets [41]. Yet the cost increases almost ten-fold if additional fossil-fueled power plants
(plants that are under construction, procured, or authorized) become operationalized (i.e., $231-$244 billion
reflecting the price of stranding 52%-55% of fossil-fuel plants) [41,42]. Countries that have invested in natural gas
(e.g., Argentina, Panama, Chile), could shift to new technologies (e.g., green hydrogen, carbon storage) and find
faster ways to decarbonize, thereby taking up the high-to-low carbon energy transition as an opportunity. By
contrast, oil companies that will have difficulties diversifying their portfolios, may find their assets stranded under
the anticipated decline in oil prices (e.g., Venezuela’s PDVSA and Mexico’s Pemex) [38].

4.1.2. Resource curse

Although the region’s largest economies – Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico – are not oil dependent, oil and
gas in these countries make up the largest industries with respect to fiscal revenues, export, and investments [38].
Studies on resource curse with a focus on performance of LAC’s national oil companies in Colombia, Venezuela,
Mexico, Brazil and Argentina posit that beyond political-economic power interests, resource curse effects are
mediated and co-produced by institutions, arguing that economic and political institutions not only mediate, but also
shape resource dependency [43]. National oil companies operating in contexts of greater independence from the
Executive Branch, with stronger checks and balances within and outside the sector, were found to exhibit better
performance [43]. Thus far, among the region’s national oil companies, only Brazil’s Petrobras and Colombia’s
Ecopetrol have pledged net zero by 2050, all while Petrobras committed to an oil production of 3.3 million barrels a
day by 2025 [38].

4.1.3. Eco-innovation
Eco-innovation is understood as a product, production process, service, management or business method
that is novel to the organization [44]. When compared to alternatives, it will result in a reduction of environmental
risk, pollution and other negative externalities generated from resource use throughout the entire life cycle [44]. In
contrast to what is broadly understood as innovation within STI research, eco-innovation needs to—directly or
indirectly—positively impact the environment [45]. External collaborative networks with appropriate partners in
eco-innovation are of key importance for the energy transition, since the complexity of climate-environment-energy
challenges require new technologies and system-level approaches to solving them, both at the organizational and
technological level. Yet because climate science remains mostly a western construct, it has created an “eco-deficit
culture”, with 78% of global climate science funding flowing to North American and European institutions [46]. As
a result, local competencies may not be available, and multi-level, local—extra-local knowledge interface needs to
be drawn upon so that climate-energy-environmental knowledge becomes effectively disseminated and benefits
frontline communities [47]. Positive impacts of external knowledge on innovation via collaboration have been
documented, emphasizing the role of external information [48] through collaborative networks [49]. Access to
intellectual property rights, manufacturing, transfer of knowledge, skills and expertise need to be provided for a
sustained process of capacity development, and for countries to be able to maintain, improve and innovate
independently [50].

4.1.4. STI collaborations and technology transfer

LAC engages in both “North-South” and “South-South” collaboration and technology transfer (e.g., Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the New Development Bank (NDB), formerly BRICS Development
Bank) in climate change mitigation, adaptation and search for cost-effective low carbon energy [51]. In some
research accounts, the North-South technology transfer and cooperation paradigm for low carbon innovation is now
being challenged, arguing that “geographies of technology transfer and cooperation” are now increasingly taking
place in South-South configurations, or even in “reverse” South-North technology cooperation [52]. Proponents
argue that South-South cooperation implies a shift away from a reliance on technology transfer and production
capabilities, to strengthening indigenous innovation capabilities [52]. Opponents on the other hand question the
actual, rather than claimed transfer of knowledge, skills and expertise that takes place during such collaborations, or
the processes used by extra-local developers to exert influence on the type of technology that is being transferred
[53].
Technology transfer in the hydropower industry was found to be driven by business considerations, such as
costs, capacities, and/or access to finance, but also geopolitical aspects such as an interest in creating or expanding a
trading area, or access to natural resources. Poor reputation, including poor safeguards and negative externalities
were found to impede technology transfer, in addition to protectionist policies and already existing capacities (i.e., in
hydropower) in host LAC countries [53]. Inhibitors included absence of a market in host countries, and the
abundance of cheap fossil fuel resources that outcompeted renewables on price [51].

4.2. Policy frameworks

In the absence of policy frameworks and political will at the national level to set countries on a path to
renewable energy transition and restructure the energy-intensive energy and industry sectors (e.g., the oil industry),
the prospects for energy transition that result in emission cuts remain uncertain, in spite of the abundance of local
renewable sources [54]. In the absence of local capacity or capabilities in the renewable energy sector, policymakers
may be making energy technology choices that are potentially neither economically nor ecologically most efficient
over the long term (i.e., “gas as a bridge to a decarbonized energy system”) [55] (Fig. 4.). Drawing on historical
analysis of LAC’s energy transitions, past experience of 20 countries in the first half of the 20 th century points out,
first, a difference between large and small energy consumer economies, with small energy consumers transitioning
earlier and faster from coal to oil than leading nations in the region; here, leapfrogging contributed to a faster pace of
the transition, where some countries exceeded developed economies by 30 years [56]. Second, lessons learned from
the region’s past extrapolate that the choice of fuels and technologies cannot be confined to profit and loss
statements [57]. If cooperation relies on power and profits, the risk arises that it will never emerge with respect to
renewable energy transition. Because benefits of distributed generation from renewables can be more broadly and
equitably shared that those of fossil fuels, developing more open, distributed renewable energy systems can run
counter to political-economic interests.
At the same time, the multiple benefits of renewable energy tend to remain both under-estimated and
under-valued. First, CO2 emissions from energy and industry sectors have increased 60% since 1992 (the signing of
UN Climate Framework Convention on Climate Change). End-use innovations in the heavy industry sectors –
namely, steel, cement and chemical industries that account for 70% of total global energy and process-related CO2
emissions [15], would help countries achieve deep emissions reductions in the “hard-to-abate” sectors. Because
these industries play a critical role in the energy system transformation (e.g., steel, cement and plastics are
indispensable for clean energy infrastructures and renewable power generation technologies), replacing fossil-fuel
based feedstocks with alternatives (synthetic fuels, hydrogen-based steel plants, high-temperature industrial electric
heating) are key for making the sectors more sustainable. Second, renewable energy can be integrated in a
comprehensive urban planning (Fig. 5.) using both renewable energy and nature-based solutions to make cities more
resilient. Issues shared by LAC coastal megacities could be addressed jointly—in energy planning, full
electrification of infrastructures and transport, deployment of advanced renewable technologies (e.g., CSP), re-use
of industrial and municipal waste, improving access to cooling and safe cooking inside homes, and addressing water
and air pollution. In peripheral regions, insufficient attention has been paid to low-cost, place-based, small-scale
energy solutions (e.g., off-grid solar, or biodigesters), which have the potential to bring cross-sector benefits and
address multiple SDGs simultaneously (e.g., re-use of bio-waste to replace costly chemical fertilizers used in
agriculture; solutions that prevent slash & burn; and clean cooking technologies that replace biomass to avoid
deforestation and air pollution).

4.3. Nationally appropriate mitigation action (NAMA)

LAC countries can reduce their emissions (from the electricity sector, fuel combustion and industrial
processes), by replacing fossil fuels with local solar or wind generation (as well as other renewables), yet the scope
of energy solutions that best fit specific contexts continues to expand, driven by STI (CSP, ocean energy,
geothermal, landfill gas). Policy-makers need to be informed about the full range of technology choices and nature-
based alternatives, including those that are likely to become available in the near term, based on worldwide research,
demonstration and deployment. NAMA registry [58] tracks cumulative status of entries that reflect funding support
for mitigation activities, broken down into three types of support (financial, technology, and capacity-building)
requested by eligible Non-Annex I parties [59]. Out of LAC’s 33 countries, 14 reported entries in the NAMA
registry as of September 2020 (latest data available for the analysis). The reported entries reflect a disproportionate
concentration of funding requested in financial support compared to technology and capacity-building support (Fig.
6.).
Out of the total funding requested by eligible Non-Annex I entries ($34.7 billion), $31.4 billion (90.5%)
was for financial support, while $3.1 billion (8.9%) was requested for technology support, and only $0.2 billion
(0.6%) for capacity-building. LAC’s entries reflected the following requests: total of $6.98 billion was requested, of
which $6.67 billion (95.6%) was in financial support, $230 million (3.3%) in technology support, and $75 million
(1.1%) in capacity-building support.

Key points
(i) Proportionately a very small share of funding for capacity building is being requested compared to
financial support (i.e., 1.1% compared to 95.6%)
(ii) A relatively small share is requested for technology support (i.e., 3.3%)
(iii) 95% of entries already identified an applicable technology

5. Discussion

A successful embedding of STI in LAC’s energy transition presumes having the ability to anticipate the
different ways in which unequal distribution of opportunities, capabilities, and access to resources will impede the
transition toward a more equitable energy system. For many countries in the region, abundant fossil fuel supply
serves as a disincentive to rapidly transition to zero-carbon economies, even in countries where renewable resources
are also abundant. To break the stalemate and shift to a renewable energy trajectory requires both societal and
scientific knowledge to demand such a change. The choices about future energy systems to a great extent depend on
human capacity to translate the urgency of climate change into action. As discussed in Results, such information and
knowledge transfers are not [yet] in place. Findings presented in this study suggest, first, that technology transfer
that includes upskilling, knowledge exchange, joint training and research in local research institutions could take
place during project implementation, but these benefits need to be demanded by host governments, since routinely
they are not offered by donor countries [60]. Second, where technology transfer takes place, the type of upskilling
provided may not include latest state-of-the-art training and research, nor exposure to problem-framing that extends
beyond techno-economic. Third, LAC scientists engage in cross-country collaborations, but climate-compatible
energy research may not be broadly disseminated, nor translated into practice. Moreover, STI directionality for the
most part fails to account for compatibility with local social and ecological systems. Fourth, a disproportionately
very small percentage of funding is being requested by LAC countries for both capacity building and technology
support (Fig. 6.).
These findings have significant implications for the discussion of energy technology choices, as well as
energy trajectories with a potential lock-in for high-carbon energy pathways and energy-intensive industrial
development. Put differently, fossil-fuel resource-rich LAC countries will struggle to find rationale for rapid
decarbonization if energy planning remains disembedded from climate and ecological systems knowledge. For both
policymakers and societal actors to understand the full range of benefits and negative externalities of specific
technology choices over the long term, it is important that both capacity, capabilities, and a comprehensive
understanding of best available energy technologies are broadly and consistently made available to both local
scientists and the voting publics so that voters can support—rather than oppose—appropriate energy technologies
and policy choices. Additionally, if low carbon technology transfer and cooperation in the LAC region remains
driven by techno-economic rationality, this will leave most of the demands put upon the energy transition unmet,
namely, addressing regional challenges (SDGs 9, 10, and 16), and paying equal attention to ecological and
environmental imperatives. Refocusing decision-making from techno-economic to climate, social, and ecological,
requires knowledge of what other options there may be to address specific challenges (a knowledge that may not be
readily available to policy-makers at all times and for all applicable technologies). This knowledge can be provided
by interdisciplinary research groups (climate-energy-ecology) more so than any specific business or industry actor
motivated by techno-economic objectives. Finally, the capacity to conduct comprehensive technology assessment
(TA) is crucial for decision making about energy choices and energy pathways not only at the national, but also sub-
national level, with a focus on distributed generation from renewables. More requests for technology and capacity-
building support by LAC countries would therefore be anticipated going forward, and increased cross-border
partnerships in energy research would greatly benefit all actors involved. Here, RTCs at the national level, and latest
state-of-the-art energy science facilitated by global partnerships (SDG 17) proposed in this study, could be
mobilized to provide information symmetry and better flows of knowledge between and among all participants.
In alignment with ecological and environmental imperatives, and to address pre-existing challenges, a
conceptual framework for interaction across societal actors is proposed so that a more equitable, open, and
participatory energy system can emerge. It builds on prior research in sustainability transition that focuses on
governance and the political dimension of transitions [61]. The RTC concept is contextualized to the LAC region, in
that multi-actor, rather than multi-level perspective is being used to better capture the potential space for interactions
among societal actors under conditions that account for local and regional challenges. Creativity and broad-based
societal participation in clean energy transition may emerge from mainstream practices, from a new directionality of
existing institutions [62], or from newly created institutions. RTC is an institution that does not represent a specific
level; rather, it provides an environment where research and multiple forms of knowledge interact, and where
“societal intelligence” becomes construed as a way of addressing specific societal challenges. Participating scientists
would be specifically tasked with identifying and including marginalized communities, local knowledge, and STI
for interactive learning and problem-solving that fit specific local contexts. These processes would lead to decision
making about which material and spatial low-carbon energy infrastructures best fit local cultural and historical
contexts and bring enhanced cross-sectoral benefits (energy-water-food-climate nexus) [63], and which present
additional climate and environmental benefits.

5.1. RTC mission

RTC is the institution for a multi-actor engagement in LAC’s climate-compatible energy transition. The
core mission is to configure place-based, equitable energy solutions that will serve both local communities and
ecological systems. Within RTC’s research-practice framework, techno-economic design follows social, climate,
and environmental function rather than the other way around. As an interface between different forms of knowledge,
RTC provides a platform for “doing, using, and interacting” (DUI) [64] that includes both intra- and extra-
institutional knowledge sourcing.
The purpose for cross-disciplinary and multi-actor engagement in LAC’s energy transition is to capture not
only the economic consequences of climate change (e.g., monetary loss), but importantly, the ecological and
environmental impacts (e.g., loss of natural habitats, flora and fauna, and deterioration of environmental quality
overall), which often result in additional negative socio-economic impacts (e.g., loss of livelihoods and out-
migration). The proposed concept of RTC envisions renewable energy solutions applied locally (SDG 9) to address
local challenges, such as structural change and reduction of inequality (SDG 10), and to develop more equitable
institutions (SDG 16). Scaled down STI (renewable [distributed] energy) is procured by, and relies on, transparent
and evolving value chains (public-private-community circular bioeconomy).

5.1.1. RTC as a concept

Collaborations among different sets of actors (science and research communities and local communities)
exert influence on the type of innovation that emerges [65], referring to “types of knowledge” and “innovation
modes”, “science and technology-based innovation modes” (STI) [66], or knowledge emerging from DUI [64]. To
achieve productive interactions between scientific communities and local practitioners, RTCs become the institution
for a multi-actor engagement in LAC’s energy transition. In this way, RTCs are not only centers for
transdisciplinary learning and transnational science, but also interlocutors that trigger renewable and sustainable
energy transition through communication, project demonstration and implementation (Fig. 7.). The RTC
organization model draws on the existing national and transnational science and research capacity, but seeks to
connect it to citizens and communities at a local level, as well as private and public sector actors to produce societal
intelligence as a basis for complex problem-solving. Making LAC’s energy transition compatible with social
aspirations requires communicating, demonstrating, and implementing renewable technologies in ways that harness,
rather that appropriate Nature’s resources. This implies subordinating techno-economic design to social, climate,
and environmental function.

5.1.2. RTC as a global partnership in research (SDG 17)

The concept of RTC is best aligned with SDG 17 (Global Partnerships & Means of Implementation) and
SDG 13 at the national level. RTCs can be supported by a national (or regional or international) jointly funded
organization, directed by well-respected scientists who have themselves engaged in transdisciplinary, transnational
research under highest scientific international standards. Within the regional context, RTCs can be viewed as a
transnational research organization that pools national researchers and scientists to work on shared regional
challenges (similar to Horizon Europe, Work Programmes on societal challenges).
While transnational research collaborations will likely increase both research diversity and the quality of
scientific research output [35], what is equally important is to be able to conduct interdisciplinary research and
subsequently translate such research into practice. RTCs bring the additional benefit of not only research, but also
training that directly engages participants with local challenges, in turn contributing to the development of research
and innovation capacity in the region. RTC collaborations may also result in the development of new research sub-
disciplines, while building upon existing strengths (e.g., environmental science and ecology). Alternatively, extra-
local collaborators can introduce and expand learning in under-represented research disciplines that are key to
solving local challenges (e.g., toxicology, epidemiology, renewable energy engineering, social science energy
research, policy study, climate, energy and environmental law).

5.1.3. RTC as a center of eco-innovation

Climate-compatible energy innovation infers from the concept of eco-innovation, and in this study refers to
processes, services, business methods that not only improve energy efficiency and performance (thus when
produced and implemented, result in reduced GHG emissions), but also positively impact the environment and
ecological systems (e.g., habitat restoration, bioremediation, ecological farming, waste and waste-water re-use).
Positive social impacts of climate-compatible energy-innovation are understood as solving [un]sustainability issues
(unsafe drinking water, air pollution,), but also introducing creative technologies that shift local livelihoods from
unsustainable to sustainable (e.g., solar-powered tools and appliances, solar cook stoves, solar boats, agrivoltaics).
Innovative energy technologies in cooling, refrigeration and air conditioning are of key priority for many LAC
countries, since access to cooling has become a development necessity due to frequency of heat waves and rising
temperatures [67]. In remote rural areas where access to cold chains is still missing, food security and medicine and
vaccine supply cannot be otherwise ensured [12]. Here, solutions need to be integrated with place-based climate
knowledge(s) that reflect community interactions with local ecological systems.

5.1.4. RTC as knowledge interlocutor

RTCs can be viewed as knowledge interlocutors that facilitate learning, communication and dissemination
of knowledge, demonstration and pilot projects, implementation and scale up. RTC collaborations can be regional or
international, and consist of DUI and STI projects with a focus on using renewable energy solutions in new creative
ways to address energy issues jointly with climate and environmental issues. In this sense, RTCs resemble research
institutions, as they generate, exchange and disseminate knowledge, yet this type of knowledge is most commonly
used by private sector actors to commercialize or further act on such knowledge (R&D) to advance market power
and profit, particularly in highly specialized industries. Under these contexts, STI application follows disembedded
economic and technological rationality (e.g., asymmetric material and biophysical resource flows based on world
market exchange values)—determined by terms of trade rather than societal or Nature’s needs [68]. RTCs address
this issue, by disseminating climate-energy-environment science knowledge to frontline communities in rural and
remote areas, and focus on developing local capacity and resilience. In this way, RTCs serve to overcome the
following inequities: information asymmetry, lack of access to education and training, and lack of access to
institutions (SDGs 4, 10, 16). By providing better access to knowledge and training, RTCs provide an impetus for a
more inclusive and more broad-based climate-compatible energy transition (SDGs 7 and 13), with social and
ecological benefits widely spread, and with local communities at the center.
Re-focusing from techno-economic rationality to rationality tasked with generating broad-based societal
and nature benefits implies that it is not only low-carbon technologies with social impacts, but also the environment
and ecological systems that become an integral concern of what is understood as “climate-compatible energy
transition”—an organizing research principle of RTCs. The principal values RTCs draw on are human talent,
creativity, livelihood imaginaries, and multiple forms of knowledge that are to be combined to solve local challenges
that relate to the climate-energy-environment nexus, with spillover positive effects on other sectors. Aside from
working on societally relevant energy solutions, RTCs need to be directed to trigger organizational and institutional
change to improve SDG 10 (inequality) and SDG 16 (justice and institutions).

5.1.5. RTC as an interface between western and Amerindian value and knowledge systems
Indigenous and local knowledge have been increasingly recognized as an important source of climate
knowledge and adaptation strategies [68,69]. Literature on multiple knowledge systems demonstrates how
traditional and local knowledge (TLK) including traditional biodiversity and ecological knowledge systems can
engage with scientific knowledge for purposes of advancing our understanding of climate-related challenges [70].
Such knowledge interface implies an acknowledgement of cultural heterogeneity of traditional (e.g. indigenous)
local knowledge and evaluation of how TLK can be linked to practical actions in climate adaptation in the LAC
region and the Amazon region [71,72]. Particularly with respect to climate impacts and risk assessment, the joint
knowledge approach (TLK and scientific knowledge), is viewed as an essential tool for short and long-term planning
[73].
In rural traditional Indigenous contexts, RTCs could foster Amerindian perspectives and recognition of
cultural values, reciprocal knowledge exchange, and better access to information and capabilities directed at
improving local community wellbeing. Indigenous ways of understanding the changing climate can contribute to the
evolving methodologies on climate-relevant data, as well as global adaptation and mitigation efforts. Western
perspectives, particularly with respect to technological and economic rationalities that underpin energy transition
driven by STI, need to critically examine impacts of their development models on non-western cultures, and to
engage in intellectually and ontologically more complex ways with non-western ontologies. For example, what
would Amerindian ontologies tell us about the most important considerations that should be accounted for in water-
energy regimes (i.e., that should be reflected in TA)? In which ways could non-Indigenous practitioners and
policymakers integrate Indigenous concepts of human-nature relations in energy development? If Indigenous
human-nature relations are based on relations of respect, reciprocity and responsibility toward non-human nature
[24,25], what would that imply for western models of natural resources’ exploitation in Indigenous territories? If
nature’s health is seen as equal to human health, how would we need to re-think the way we assess negative
externalities of extractive development and economic growth (destruction of natural habitats and biodiversity,
species loss, pollution and deforestation)?
Concepts of nature as a system [23], respect vis-à-vis living nature, and “politics of kinship” expressed in
human-Nature relations through responsibility and reciprocity thus provide rich ontological grounds for not only
western development practitioners, but also scientists and researchers whose theoretical perspectives will inevitably
exert influence on the type of climate-energy solutions that will be developed, or innovated upon in the future.

6. Conclusions

To make LAC’s sustainable and renewable energy transition more equitable, this study argued that the
account of spatial contexts and materialities needs to expand beyond techno-economic considerations. When
confined to technological and economic framings, past inequities may be replicated and potentially exacerbated (i.e.,
via asymmetrical material and biophysical resource flows). As such, the transition will not meet societal aspirations
[74], nor significantly advance the under-performing SDGs. On the other hand, if the focus of the energy transition
were to be expanded to address societal, environmental and ecological challenges, it can become a key driver toward
progress on multiple SDGs [6,12]. At the national level, this implies redirecting STI [75] toward decarbonization of
the energy matrix by a rapid uptake of renewables and a parallel phase-out of fossil fuels. At the sub-national level,
this implies a shift toward energy self-sufficiency and local sourcing of renewables. In rural contexts, this approach
would support not only the emergence of place-based bioeconomies that may curb out-migration, but also improve
energy access and increase the range of livelihood alternatives (by providing a better access to locally sourced
renewables), and contribute to an emergence of more equitable institutions (equitable access to free/low-cost
renewable energy, establishment of local schools and clinics). Access by rural Indigenous communities to RTC
knowledge and training (e.g., distributed energy alternatives, climate and weather data) would provide opportunities
for integrating local knowledge systems with [western] climate-energy-environment knowledge. Integrating the two
would contribute to improvements in livelihood security (e.g., timely responses to climate and weather events), with
specific benefits for agroforestry and agroecology.
Given the urgency to respond to climate change and make timely decisions based on latest scientific
knowledge, not accounting for state-of-the-art knowledge may result in the wrong types of investment and
exorbitant costs in stranded assets in the future, negatively impacting both national budgets and SDG coherence in
national development. While the study did not discuss in detail each of the referenced SDGs, the linkage between
SDGs 7, 9, 10 and 16 were made explicit, and a proposition was made to address SDGs 9, 10, and 16 jointly during
the sustainable and renewable energy transition (SDG 7). Second, the study argued that cross-border climate-energy
partnerships (SDGs 13 and 17), constituted within the proposed research and training institutes (RTCs) would help
advance the energy transition, by ensuring information symmetry and better flows of climate and renewable energy
knowledge. Third, the study posited that in renewable energy research and policy practice, both local and extra-local
knowledge play an important role. Collaborating with partners who come from similar contexts or geographic
locations may broaden the regional impacts of LAC’s energy transition, but participation by research institutions
that have conducted and advanced inter- and transdisciplinary research in renewable energy over decades may speed
the pace of the transition. In answering the question–how can governments and communities become capacitated to
navigate the energy transition, while recognizing the full scope of challenges and opportunities?, both global
partnerships and RTCs will contribute to national capacity to navigate through climate-challenged future. More
requests for technology and capacity-building support by LAC countries should be anticipated going forward, and
increased cross-border partnerships in climate and energy research would benefit all countries involved. Here, global
partnerships (SDG 17) in climate and energy research (SDG 7s and 13) could be mobilized to ensure that better
knowledge flows, information symmetry and productive collaborations emerge between and among participating
countries.

6.1. Recommendations

Given the urgency to respond to climate change and make timely decisions based on latest scientific
knowledge, the study makes two specific recommendations for countries in the LAC region: (i) establish RTCs as
centers for transdisciplinary climate-energy research, training and learning, and (ii) engage in global climate-energy
partnerships. Both will contribute to national capacity to navigate through climate-challenged future.

6.1.1. RTC as a collaborative space for national and transnational climate–energy research
Aside from conducting research and upskilling local talent, key functions of RTCs are to communicate,
demonstrate, and implement state-of-the-art climate compatible energy solutions based on contextualized
technology assessment (Fig. 7.). In addition, RTCs would engage scientific capacity to focus on energy solutions
that account for (i) equitability features of the technology, including equitable access, and (ii) negative externalities
(pollution, toxicity) across scales (national, sub-national), and (iii) Nature-based solutions that aim at Nature’s
conservation and restoration. This implies that at the national and sub-national level, RTCs could be directed to
conduct locally contextualized energy technology assessment (TA) aiming at generating climate-compatible energy
technology choices that are both socially and ecologically equitable. By processes of broad-based communications,
demonstration, and implementation, a better access to zero-low carbon energy would open up for underserved
communities, and participation in energy production (via distributed power such as PV systems) can make the
energy transition more inclusive with respect to otherwise excluded communities (e.g., rural Indigenous
communities). Accounting for Nature’s benefits would imply focusing on solutions that equally benefit Nature (i.e.,
support ecological systems rather than over-exploit or erode Nature’s re-generative and restorative function). When
taking this climate-energy approach, countries could leapfrog and transform their energy matrix toward renewables
more rapidly – via a significant growth in distributed power at a sub-national level, and an accelerated expansion of
renewable electricity generation and storage cross countries and regions.

6.1.2. Global climate-energy partnerships (SDG 13 & SDG 17)

Collaborations with partners who score well in the SDGs which are lagging in the host country may
improve chances of learning how to address them during energy transition. By contrast, partnering with countries
that score poorly (e.g., in SDG 16: institutions) implies a higher risk of disseminating bad practices (Table 1). At the
same time, host governments need to do due diligence to enforce local application of high standards. Energy
modelling that includes policy consideration (e.g., EMoPS) helps not only with analytics, but can also be used to
integrate data with good governance principles [76].
Table 1. Climate-energy partnerships for an equitable energy transition

Shared interest Partnering with countries that score well in SDG 16 and have achieved Relevant SDGs
progress in any of the following:
Emission reductions Achieved largest cuts in GHG emission over the past decade, including SDG 7, SDG 9,
decarbonization of energy-intensive industries and processes, and/or SDG 16*
increased levels of renewable energy use in highest emitting sectors

Pollution & Successfully implemented regulation on harmful pollutants, including F- SDG 7, SDG 9, SDG 10, SDG 12,
Industrial waste gases SDG 16
standards
Renewable energy Committed to transforming energy matrix toward renewables and/or SDG 7, SDG 9, SDG 10, SDG 12,
matrix & intent on developing distributed power using renewables, and/or SDG 16
distributed power reducing energy use and energy consumption

Renewable Committed to energy transition and have similar renewable energy SDG 7, SDG 9, SDG 10,
resource resource endowments (e.g., solar potential) SDG 16
endowments
Competence and Supported research institutes with advanced research agendas aligned SDG 4, SDG 7, SDG 9, SDG 10,
research capacity with the objectives set out in the Paris Agreement and the Agenda for SDG 16
Sustainable Development

Shared concerns Achieved a significant progress in the following areas: ambient air SDG 6, SDG 7, SDG 9, SDG 10, SDG 11,
pollution, safe drinking water standards, safe sanitation, decreased SDG 12, SDG 15,
trend in natural resource depletion as a percentage of GNI SDG 16
Cybersecurity Addressed energy security challenges (e.g., variability of supply from SDG 7, SDG 9,
renewables, cybersecurity, transmission grid security, measures to SDG 16
prevent energy infrastructure hacking)
Countering Developed strategies to counter [mis|dis]information including climate SDG 4, SDG 16
information denialism or non-disclosure of negative externalities. Non-disclosure =information symmetry ensures that
asymmetry and disinformation shape public beliefs in ways that obstruct progress publics demand the right kind of
in resolving any and all of the above challenges (i.e., not knowing that change, including progress toward SDG
water is contaminated makes those drinking it not demand safe 7 and SDG 13 (energy & climate), but
drinking water standards and/or sources of pollution be removed also SDG 9 and SDG 10 (innovation &
social cohesion)
* SDG 16 [ideal type]: peaceful, just and inclusive societies whose accountable and inclusive institutions ensure that the energy transition is
equitable. To achieve this goal, governing institutions need to provide a way of connecting science to policy-making (ICSU, ISSC).

Declaration of Competing Interest

The author declares that no known competing financial interest or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This material has been produced under UK Climate Compatible Growth programme. During the initial phase of this
research, the author was a recipient of a DOC Fellowship of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, for which the author
is very grateful.
References
[1] V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I.
Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and
B. Zhou (Eds.), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers. IPCC, 2021:
Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 2021.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FrontMatter.pdf.
[2] ECLAC, Pandemic Prompts Rise in Poverty to Levels Unprecedented in Recent Decades and Sharply Affects
Inequality and Employment, 2021. https://www.cepal.org/en/pressreleases/pandemic-prompts-risepoverty-levels-
unprecedented-recent-decades-and-sharply-affects/; see also, L.F. López-Calva, COVID-19 and Wealth at the Top:
More and Wealthier Billionaires After the Crisis in LAC, UNDP Newsroom, 2021.
https://www.opensaldru.uct.ac.za/bitstream/handle/11090/1009/2021_281_Saldruwp.pdf?sequence=3.
[3] N. Hampl, Negotiating Climate and Energy Futures: Prospects for Climate Compatible Recoveries in Latin
America and the Caribbean, CCG Policy briefing, https://doi:org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1037215/v1.
[4] J.L. Dammert, Global roundtable on extractive industries, UN Global Roundtable, 2021.
https://resourcegovernance.org/blog/quitting-race-to-bottom-extractive-industries-UN-roundtable
[5] S. Pye, S. Bradley, N. Hughes, J. Price, D. Welsby, P. Ekins, An equitable redistribution of unburnable carbon,
Nat. Commun 11 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17679-3.
[6] SDG Index for Latin America and the Caribbean, Report, 2020. https://www.sdgindex.org/reports/2019-sdg-
index-for-latin-america-and-the-caribbean/.
[7] UNDP, Regional human development report, 2021.
https://www.latinamerica.undp.org/content/rblac/en/home/library/regional-human-development-report-2021.html.
[8] Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). The Inefficiency of Inequality (2018),
(LC/SES.37/3-P), Santiago, 2018. https://www.cepal.org/en/publications/43443-inefficiency-inequality.
[9] Ch. Washburn, M. Pablo-Romero, Measures to promote renewable energies for electricity generation in Latin
American countries, Energy policy 128 (2019) 212-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.12.059.
[10] A.R. De Queiroz, A. Mulcahy, A. Sankarasubramanian, J. P. Deane, G. Mahinthakumar, N. Lu, J. F. DeCarolis,
Repurposing an energy system optimization model for seasonal power generation planning, Energy 181 (2019)
1321-1330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.05.126.
[11] L.H. Balza, R. Espinasa, T. Serebrisky, Lights on: energy needs in latin america and the caribbean to
2040. Inter-American Development Bank, 2016: pp. 1-39.
https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Lights-On-Energy-Needs-in-Latin-America-and-the-
Caribbean-to-2040.pdf.
[12] SEforALL, Recover Better with Sustainable Energy Guide for Caribbean Countries, 2020.
https://www.gcca.eu/node/5458.
[13] REN21, Renewables Now. https://www.ren21.net/what-are-the-current-trends-in-renewable-energy. 2021
(accessed 20 January 2022).
[14] IEA, Net Zero by 2050. A roadmap for the Global Energy Sector.
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/deebef5d-0c34-4539-9d0c-10b13d840027/NetZeroby2050-
ARoadmapfortheGlobalEnergySector_CORR.pdf; see also IEA (2020), Energy Technology Perspectives 2020, IEA,
Paris. https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-technology-perspectives-2020, and IEA (2020), Clean Energy Innovation,
IEA, Paris. https://www.iea.org/reports/clean-energy-innovation.
[15] IEA, Status of Power System Transformation, 2019. https://www.oecd.org/publications/status-of-power-
system-transformation-2019-7c49400a-en.htm.
[16] D.G. Howell, Are we advancing in the transition of the energy matrix in Latin America? Analysis and
considerations. Policy Brief on Trade and Environment, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 2021.
https://www.kas.de/documents/273477/5442457/Are+we+advancing+in+the+transition+of+the+energy+matrix+in+
Latin+America.pdf/811ae7f5-86f6-1b45-6d27-987a42389406?version=1.0&t=1611057887948.
[17] A.P. Dobson, S.L. Pimm, L. Hannah, L. Kaufman, J.A. Ahumada, A.W. Ando, A. Bernstein, J. Busch, P.
Daszak, J. Engelmann, M.F. Kinnaird, Ecology and economics for pandemic prevention, Science 369 (2020) 379-
381. https://doi.10.1126/science.abc3189.
[18] C. Hepburn, B. O’Callaghan, N. Stern, J. Stiglitz, D. Zenghelis, Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages
accelerate or retard progress on climate change?, Oxford Rev. Econ. Policy 36, Supplement 1 (2020) S359-S381.
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/catalog/uuid:436d6f02-cd66-404b-8029-
26b3b3efdff7/download_file?file_format=&safe_filename=Hepburn_et_al_2020_will_covid_19.pdf.
[19] K.E. Jenkins, J.C. Stephens, T.G. Reames, D. Hernández, Towards impactful energy justice research:
transforming the power of academic engagement. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 67 (2020), 101510.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101510.
[20] B.K. Sovacool, D.J. Hess, S. Amir, F.W. Geels, R. Hirsh, L.R. Medina, S. Yearley, Sociotechnical agendas:
Reviewing future directions for energy and climate research. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101617.
[21] F.J. Vai, Regional and international inter-organizational STI and DUI collaborations as carriers for eco-
innovation, Reg. Stud. Reg. Sci. 8 (2021) 402-419. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2021.1989324.
[22] H.A. Smith, K. Sharp, Indigenous climate knowledges, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 3.5 (2012) 467-
476. https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.185.
[23] N.J. Wilson, J. Inkster. Respecting water: Indigenous water governance, ontologies, and the politics of kinship
on the ground, Environ Plan E Nat Space 1 (4) (2018) 516-538. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618789378
[24] E.R. Atleo, Principles of Tsawalk: An Indigenous approach to global crisis, 2012.
https://philpapers.org/rec/ATLPOT.
[25] G.S. Coulthard, Red skin, white masks: Rejecting the colonial politics of recognition, Minnesota, 2014.
[26] A. Muscat, E. M. de Olde, R. Ripoll-Bosch, H.H. Van Zanten, T.A. Metze, C.J.A.M. Termeer, M.K. van
Ittersum, I.J.M. de Boer, Principles, drivers and opportunities of a circular bioeconomy, Nature Food 2 (2021) 561-
566. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00340-7.
[27] M. Mazzucato, Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities, Ind. Corp. Chang. 27 (2018)
803-815. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty034.
[28] Environmental Justice Atlas. 2021. https://ejatlas.org/.
[29] A. Bebbington, J. Bury, Subterranean struggles: New dynamics of mining, oil, and gas in Latin America,
University of Texas press, 2013. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7560/748620.
[30] A. Scheidel, L. Temper, F. Demaria, J. Martínez-Alier, Ecological distribution conflicts as forces for
sustainability: an overview and conceptual framework, Sustain Sci. 13 (2017) 585-598.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0519-0.
[31] World Health Organization (WHO). Compendium of WHO and other UN guidance on health and environment.
Geneva, World Health Organization; 2021 (WHO/HEP/ECH/EHD/21.02). https://www.who.int/tools/compendium-
on-health-and-environment.
[32] S. Silva, E. Laranjeira, I. Soares, Health Benefits from Renewable Electricity Sources: A Review, Energies
14.20 (2021) 6678. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14206678.
[33] H. Jorquera, L.D. Montoya, N.Y. Rojas, Urban air pollution, Urban Climates in Latin America. Springer,
Cham, (2019) 137-165. https://www.springerprofessional.de/urban-air-pollution/16504208.
[34] UN Environment Programme (UNEP), Efforts to reduce air and climate pollutants in Latin America could reap
immediate health benefits. Press release. 20 April 2018. www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release.
[35] J. Adams, D. Pendlebury, R. Potter, M. Szomszor, Global Research Report: Latin America: South and Central
America, Mexico and the Caribbean, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). https://clarivate.com/news/clarivate-
global-research-report-outlines-rising-impact-in-latin-america/.
[36] IEA, IRENA, UNSD, World Bank, WHO. 2020. Tracking SDG 7: The Energy Progress Report. World Bank,
Washington DC. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/9807257f-ff94-48dc-9318-
0168ebfef283/Tracking_SDG7_The_Energy_Progress_Report_2020.pdf.
[37] L. Rasmus, R.Hanlin, U.E. Hansen, Ch. Nzila, Renewable electrification and local capability formation:
Linkages and interactive learning, Energy Policy 117 (2018) 326-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.02.011.
[38] L. Palacios, F. Monaldi, The Huge Risk Facing Latin American Oil Companies, Am. Q. (2021).
https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/the-huge-risk-facing-latin-american-oil-companies/.
[39] Reuters, Exxon raises Guayna resource estimate after new discovery, Reuters Newsroom (2021).
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exxon-raises-guyana-resource-estimate-after-new-discovery-2021-20-07/.
[40] T. V. de Graaf, M. Bradshaw, Stranded wealth: rethinking the politics of oil in an age of abundance, Int. Aff. 94
(6) (2018) 1309-1328. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiy197.
[41] E. González-Mahecha, O. Lecuyer, M.C.M. Hallack, M. Bazilian, A. Vogt-Schib, Committed emissions and the
risk of stranded assets from power plants in Latin America and the Caribbean. Inter-American Development Bank,
2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.18235/0001827.
[42] P. Ravillard, F. Carvajal, D.D.L. Soto, J.E. Chueca, K. Antonio, Y. Ji, M.C.M. Hallack, Towards greater energy
efficiency in Latin America and the Caribbean: Progress and policies, Inter-American Development Bank, 2019.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18235/0002070.
[43] J. Corrales, G. Hernández, J.C. Salgado, Oil and regime type in Latin America: Reversing the line of causality,
Energy Policy 142 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111347.
[44] R. Kemp, P. Pearson, (2008). MEI project about Measuring Eco-Innovation. Final report.
https://cordis.europa.eu/docs/results/44/44513/124548931-6_en.pdf.
[45] J. Horbach, Ch. Rammer, K. Rennings, Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact—
The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull, Ecol Econ 78 (2012) 112-122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.005.
[46] Q.H. Vuong, Western monopoly of climate science is creating an eco-deficit culture, Economy, Land &
Climate Insight 11 (2021) 1-9. https://philpapers.org/rec/VUOWMO.
[47] P. Rudiak-Gould, The influence of science communication on indigenous climate change perception:
theoretical and practical implications, Hum. Ecol. 42.1 (2014) 75-86. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24015680.
[48] C.C. Bitencourt, F.D.O. Santini, G.Zanandrea, C.Froehlich, W.J. Ladeira, Empirical generalizations in eco-
innovation: A meta-analytic approach, J. Clean. Prod 245 (2020) 118721.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118721.
[49] E. Zubeltzu‐Jaka, A. Erauskin‐Tolosa, I. Heras‐Saizarbitoria, Shedding light on the determinants of eco‐
innovation: A meta‐analytic study, Bus Strategy Environ 27 (2018) 1093-1103. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2054.
[50] J. Cronin, N. Hughes, J. Tomei, L.C. Couto, M. Ali, V. Kizilcec, A. Adewole, I. Bisaga, O. Broad, P. Parikh, E.
Eludoyin, Embedding justice in the 1.5° C transition: A transdisciplinary research agenda. Renew. Sustain. Ener.
Transit. 1 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rset.2021.100001.
[51] J. Kirchherr, F. Urban, Technology transfer and cooperation for low carbon energy technology: Analysing 30
years of scholarship and proposing a research agenda, Energy Policy (2018) 600-609.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.001.
[52] F. Urban, China's rise: Challenging the North-South technology transfer paradigm for climate change
mitigation and low carbon energy, Energy policy (2018) 320-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.007.
[53] J. Kirchherr, N. Matthews, Technology transfer in the hydropower industry: An analysis of Chinese dam
developers’ undertakings in Europe and Latin America, Energy Policy 113 (2018) 546-558,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.043.
[54] M. Gonzalez-Salazar, W.R. Poganietz, Evaluating the complementarity of solar, wind and hydropower to
mitigate the impact of El Niño Southern Oscillation in Latin America, Renew. Energ. 174 (2021) 453-467.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.04.048.
[55] Ch. McGlade, S. Pye, P. Ekins, M. Bradshaw, J. Watson, The future role of natural gas in the UK: A bridge to
nowhere?, Energy Policy 113 (2018) 454-465, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.022.
[56] M.M. Rubio, M. Folchi, Will small energy consumers be faster in transition? Evidence from the early shift from
coal to oil in Latin America, Energy Policy 50 (2012) 50-61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.054.
[57] R.C. Allen, Backward into the future: The shift to coal and implications for the next energy transition, Energy
Policy 50 (2012) 17-23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.020.
[58] UNFCCC, Registry of nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMA). Report by the secretariat,
FCCC/CP/2020/INF.1 (2020). https://unfccc.int/documents.
[59] UNFCCC. List of Non-Annex Countries. https://unfccc.int/process/parties-non-party-stakeholders/parties-
convention-and-observer-states.
[60] Y. Chen, Comparing North-South technology transfer and South-South technology transfer: The technology
transfer impact of Ethiopian Wind Farms, Energy Policy 116 (2018) 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.12.051.
[61] F. Avelino, J.M. Wittmayer, Shifting power relations in sustainability transitions: a multi-actor perspective, J.
Environ. Policy Plan. 18 (2016) 628-649. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2015.1112259.
[62] J. Hoffman, A. Loeber, Exploring the micro-politics in transitions from a practice perspective: The case of
greenhouse innovation in the Netherlands, J. Environ. Policy Plan. 18 (2015) 692-711.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2015.1113514.
[63] N. Hampl, Consume less or grow sustainably? Matching energy systems with Indigenous worldviews in
Panama, Reg. Stud. Reg. Sci. 9 (1) (2022) 412-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2022.2081598.
[64] A. Marzucchi, S. Montresor, Forms of knowledge and eco-innovation modes: Evidence from Spanish
manufacturing firms. Ecol Econ 131 (2017) 208-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.032.
[65] Á. González-Moreno, Á. Triguero, F.J. Sáez-Martínez, Many or trusted partners for eco-innovation? The
influence of breadth and depth of firms' knowledge network in the food sector, Technol Forecast Soc Change 147
(2019) 51-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.06.01.
[66] M.B. Jensen, B. Johnson, E. Lorenz, E., B. Å. Lundvall, Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation, The
learning economy and the economics of hope, 2007.
https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/31613/626406.pdf?sequence=1
[67] ESMAP, The energy progress report 2021: Tracking SDG 7 (2021), https://esmap.org/the-energy-progress-
report-2021:-tracking-sdg7.
[68] D. Russi, A.C. Gonzalez‐Martinez, J.C. Silva‐Macher, S.Giljum, J. Martínez‐Alier, M.C. Vallejo, Material
flows in Latin America: a comparative analysis of Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru, 1980–2000, J. Ind. Ecol. 12
(2008) 704-720. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00074.x.
[69] Escazú Agreement, Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in
Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean, United Nations Treaty Collection, 2018.
https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/43583/1/S1800428_en.pdf.
[70] H. Schroeder, N.C. González P, Bridging knowledge divides: The case of indigenous ontologies of territoriality
and REDD+, For, Policy Econ 100 (2019) 198-206, https://doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2018.12.010.
[71] FAO and FILAC, Forest governance by indigenous and tribal peoples. An opportunity for climate action in
Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Santiago. (2021). https://www.fao.org/documents/card/fr/c/cb2930en/.
[72] W.S. Walker, S.R. Gorelik, A. Baccini, J.L. Aragon-Osejo, C. Josse, C. Meyer, M.N. Macedo, C. Augusto, S.
Rios, T. Katan, A.A. de Souza, The role of forest conversion, degradation, and disturbance in the carbon dynamics
of Amazon indigenous territories and protected areas, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117 (6) (2020) 3015-3025.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913321117.
[73] A.Y. Iwama, F. Araos, J. Anbleyth-Evans, V. Marchezini, A. Ruiz-Luna, F. Ther-Ríos, G. Bacigalupe, P.E.
Perkins, Multiple knowledge systems and participatory actions in slow-onset effects of climate change: insights and
perspectives in Latin America and the Caribbean, Curr Opin Environ Sustain 50 (2021) 31-42,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.01.010; see also, The Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples’ Platform
(LCIPP), UN Climate Change Conference. https://unfccc.int/news/the-engagement-of-indigenous-peoples-and-
local-communities-crucial-to-tackling-climate-crisis.
[74] U. Brand, B. Muraca, É. Pineault, M. Sahakian, A. Schaffartzik, A. Novy, C. Streissler, H. Haberl, V. Asara, K.
Dietz, M. Lang, From planetary to societal boundaries: an argument for collectively defined self-limitation, Sustain.
Sci. Pract. Policy 17 (2021) 264-291. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2021.1940754.
[75] Guidebook for the preparation of Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) for SDGs Roadmaps (2020),
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f9f6a6a8-ac7e-11eb-9767-01aa75ed71a1.
[76] M. Howells, Energy system analytics and good governance – U4RIA goals of Energy Modelling for Policy
Support, 2021. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-311311/v1.

Separate list of captions for all figures (Figs 1-7) as instructed at GFA:

Fig. 1. Capital cost of solar technology

Fig. 2. Declining cost of renewable energy (price in USD per Megawatt hour of electricity by source*)

Fig. 3. Public funds committed in recovery packages via energy-sector policies (Argentina, Colombia,
Brazil, Mexico) (Jan 2020 to Jun 2022) (in $ billions)

Fig. 4. Projected cost of natural gas and crude oil (imports and extraction) (USD/GJ)

Fig. 5. LAC renewable technology policies

Fig. 6. NAMA funding

Fig. 7. Climate-energy partnerships (SDG 17: SDG 7 & SDG 13)

Table 1. Climate-energy partnerships for an equitable energy transition