System Thinking and Climate Change

The energy transition within the overall context of sustainable development would benefit strategically if policy makers and other decision makers regularly employed systems thinking. The UN has defined systems thinking within the context of meeting the SDGs and is particularly instructive to our short discussion on potential energy transition water-related impacts:

System Thinking is a way of approaching complex issues by acknowledging them as an interlinked network of subsystems and elements…Taking a Systems Thinking approach in implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development allows practitioners to visualize how improvement in one area of the system can either positively or adversely affect another area of the system, and how to turn trade-offs into opportunities for the benefit of the entire system while reducing the possibility of producing unintended responses and consequences. The systems framework allows policymakers and stakeholders to shift from a conventional, siloed and linear policy and decision-making approach towards integrated planning scenarios (UN ESCAP: System Thinking).

Reducing GHG emissions and decarbonizing aspects of the global economy is a priority to ensure we meet global climate goals and reduce the negative climatic impacts on future generations and the environment. Applying systems thinking can help us understand how different policy outcomes we seek can impact other parts of the system (energy accessibility vs. sustainability), or how that system can then interact and change directions vis-à-vis other systems (energy provision vs. clean water). Before this gets too esoteric, let’s apply systems thinking to better understanding potential water-related impacts of the energy transition.

One aspect of the energy transition that could (and in some cases already is) have a negative impact on water outcomes and is still being studied and assessed, is the move to electric vehicles (EVs). As we learned from using Energy Outlooks earlier in the semester, ICE vehicles will still be dominant in the marketplace for some years to come. That being said, all US automotive manufacturers are producing EVs and several, including Ford and GM, have committed to moving toward an all EV fleet. That means the very nature of the automotive supply chain will change and adjust to source the materials that are unique to EV manufacture (i.e., the need for lithium ion batteries). For instance, as the automotive industry transitions to EV production, McKinsey & Co. predict a nearly 30% annual growth rate for lithium-ion batteries between now and 2030 (McKinsey & Company, Battery 2030: Resilient, sustainable, and circular). Further, the IEA estimates that over 50% of lithium production is concentrated in areas of high water stress in countries like Argentina, Bolivia and Chile (IEA, Reducing the impact of extractive industries on groundwater resources). With recent discoveries of extensive lithium reserves in the US, threats to groundwater and wetlands as a result of the extraction process could have significant negative impacts on local communities and drinking water sources. More study is needed on the water impacts within the EV metals supply chain (including nickel and cobalt). Similarly, assessing the renewable energy supply chain for water-related impacts is still in the earliest stages. And while moving away from fossil fuel extraction and use will certainly have an overall positive impact on water resources, metals and mineral extraction associated with components for wind and solar manufacturing may still have extreme local impacts in areas already facing water stress.