Sustainability Transitions Through Fossil Infrastructure Deactivation

Abstract

This article reframes sustainability transitions by positioning the deliberate deactivation of fossil fuel infrastructures—such as coal plants, oil fields, and pipelines—as a central mechanism of systemic change. While prevailing approaches often emphasize renewable energy and innovation, they tend to neglect how existing fossil systems are actively maintained by powerful networks. We argue that sustainability transitions require not only building alternatives but also deactivating entrenched fossil infrastructures. To address this gap, we propose an analytical framework that conceptualizes deactivation as a contested socio-political process shaped by antagonistic interactions between fossil blocs—coalitions of incumbent agents defending fossil infrastructures—and emerging deactivation networks working to disable and dismantle them. Drawing on six illustrative cases from diverse contexts, we examine the legal, institutional, narrative, and spatial mechanisms through which deactivation is either enabled or obstructed. We also introduce an interdisciplinary methodology that combines path tracing, social network analysis, and qualitative comparison to analyze how these dynamics between fossil blocs and deactivation networks evolve over time. This article contributes to the sustainability transition literature by demonstrating that the deactivation of fossil infrastructures is a political, material, and justice-oriented process, one that is essential to ending fossil fuel dependency and enabling sustainable futures.

1. Introduction

Global efforts to promote sustainability transitions have overwhelmingly focused on building renewable energy capacity [1]; yet, far less attention has been paid to the deactivation of existing fossil infrastructures [2]. Even as renewables surge, fossil fuel power plants, coal mines, oil wells, pipelines, and refineries continue to operate, locking in carbon emissions for decades to come. In fact, global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels reached a new all-time high in 2024 [3]. The fossil industry and its allies persist in expanding production and infrastructural development, pouring investments into what researchers have termed “carbon bombs”, which are megaprojects capable of emitting over a gigaton of CO₂ each [4]. As United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres starkly observed in mid-2023, for every dollar the industry spends on oil and gas exploration, a mere four cents goes to clean energy and carbon capture and storage. He further admonished that the fossil fuel industry and its “enablers”—from financial institutions to public relations firms—bear a “special responsibility” to stop obstructing the phase-out of fossil fuels [5]. These realities underscore an uncomfortable truth, that technical solutions alone are insufficient for sustainable futures if existing fossil-centred socio-economic systems remain intact and entrenched.

Momentum is growing for a strategic emphasis on fossil infrastructure deactivation as a complement to clean energy innovation and policy initiatives [6,7]. This article proposes an analytical approach to fossil infrastructure deactivation as a main strategy to sustainability. Scientists and climate advocates increasingly argue that meeting the Paris Agreement goals necessitates winding down operating coal, oil, and gas facilities on an aggressive timeline [8,9,10,11]. Yet, fossil infrastructure deactivation has proven to be politically and socially challenging. Efforts to date have been ineffective and fragmented, revealing a critical gap in research, policy, and political action. Most of the transition literature assumes that carbon-intensive infrastructures will inevitably decline “automatically” once cleaner technologies become competitive [12], but incumbent fossil fuel interests form a resilient and stable network that obstructs deactivation through economic leverage, institutional lock-in, and cultural narratives [13]. We term this the fossil bloc, a hegemonic coalition of interrelated agents, such as fossil fuel companies, government agencies, investors, and ideologues that work to perpetuate fossil fuel dependency and delay infrastructure deactivation [14,15]. The persistence of this network helps explain why even unprecedented climate protests and widespread mobilization have so far failed to bend global emissions curves downward. Despite mounting scientific evidence and public pressure, the world remains on a trajectory far off a sustainable path, with projections of 2.5–2.8 °C warming implying catastrophic impacts [9].

Focusing on fossil infrastructure deactivation reframes decarbonization from the view that this is a mere question of adopting new solutions, to the recognition that it is necessary to terminate current fossil infrastructures. This article addresses this crucial reformulation, synthesizing insights from various disciplines and situating them within the current conflictual dynamics around fossil fuels. Our aim is to indicate the socio-political, spatial, and institutional processes that underpin the deliberate phase-out of fossil energy systems [16,17].

It should be clarified that, while the term “energy transition” refers to the shift from fossil-based to renewable energy sources—typically emphasizing technological substitution and favourable policy measures—the concept of sustainability transition encompasses a broader transformation of societal systems. This includes not only energy production but also patterns of consumption, institutional arrangements, economic models, and narrative frameworks. Energy transition may occur without altering the underlying structures of inequality or ecological harm if it simply replaces fossil fuels with renewables without changing relationships of power or modes of production. In contrast, a sustainability transition entails a reconfiguration of the socio-technical regimes that lock in unsustainable practices, prioritizing ecological integrity and long-term resilience. In this article, we use the concept of sustainability transition as the overarching frame, within which fossil infrastructure deactivation functions as a crucial mechanism both for reducing emissions and for confronting the deeper institutional and cultural dependencies on fossil energy systems.

The article first frames fossil infrastructure deactivation within the context of sustainability transitions; then, it highlights the limitations of conventional approaches. It proceeds by discussing the contested nature of fossil infrastructure deactivation with the support of the lessons drawn from the analysis of six illustrative cases. Finally, the article discusses and expands the analysis with particular attention paid to its methodological developments.

2. Conceptual Framing: From Energy Transitions to Sustainability Transitions Through Fossil Infrastructures Deactivation

Mainstream approaches to energy transitions often emphasize technological substitution, which is the idea that renewable energy, with the appropriate support of policy tools, will simply displace fossil fuels over time [1,6,16]. In contrast, we argue that transitioning to sustainability requires a focus on fossil infrastructure deactivation, which is the purposeful shutdown and dismantling of fossil-fuel-based systems. This shift in focus is essential because fossil infrastructures are not passive objects that fade away once cleaner options emerge; rather, they are active socio-political systems embedded in economies, politics, and governance. Political ecologists, anthropologists, and geographers remind us that infrastructures such as pipelines, power plants, and oil rigs are not merely technical artifacts; rather, they encode and reinforce power relations, control over resources, and patterns of development [18,19,20,21,22,23].

In other words, fossil infrastructures form the backbone of what has been called carbon lock-in, which is a self-perpetuating alignment of technologies, policies, capital investments, and cultural norms that collectively hinder the emergence of sustainable alternatives [24]. A transition to sustainability, therefore, cannot be achieved through new investments alone; it also requires the disruption of the entrenched fossil fuel regime, which is an objective that must be pursued primarily through fossil infrastructure deactivation.

We use the concept of the fossil bloc [15] not as a static list of agents or factors, but as an integrative and relational tool to analyse how fossil fuel dominance is reproduced in specific contexts. The fossil bloc is an impenetrable barricade of interests “to maintain the status quo” [25], composed of interdependent material, institutional, and discursive elements whose configuration varies across space and time. In some settings, state-owned fossil enterprises and national development agendas may be central; in others, private oil and gas corporations and financial institutions may play the dominant role. Similarly, discursive framings (e.g., energy security, jobs, nationalism) differ by region and political culture.

Rather than a fixed structure, the fossil bloc should be understood as a historically and geographically contingent formation, a network of aligned interests, infrastructures, and ideologies that work to stabilize fossil fuel systems. This framing allows for comparative analysis while resisting oversimplification, and it helps clarify why strategies for infrastructure deactivation must be tailored to the specific contours of fossil power in each context. This perspective underscores that continued fossil fuel dominance is not an accident of slow technological diffusion, but rather the result of deliberate efforts by fossil incumbents to protect their power and influence.

Fossil infrastructures function as centres of accumulation and political patronage, particularly in petrostates and resource-rich economies [14,20]. They generate revenues, employment, and geopolitical leverage, which in turn incentivize the powerful components of a fossil bloc to resist their deactivation. From oil subsidies and tax breaks to lobbying networks that shape policy, the institutional architecture surrounding fossil energy actively works to reinforce and reproduce its own dominance [26,27]. Thus, any meaningful attempt at infrastructure deactivation must confront this entrenched incumbency, including the policies, financial arrangements, and cultural and institutional norms that keep fossil systems alive well beyond their ecological and political viability [28,29].

At the same time, critical infrastructure studies and political ecology provide a spatial lens on this issue, especially regarding the Global South. In many developing regions, fossil fuel projects are tightly interwoven with questions of national development, sovereignty, and post-colonial state-building [30]. For instance, oil and gas exports can underpin government budgets and debt repayments; coal plants may be justified in terms of chronic energy poverty. Calls to strand these assets can thus trigger fears of economic stagnation or loss of autonomy. Hernandez and Newell documented how even ostensibly green initiatives, such as lithium mining for batteries in South America, can entrench extractive logics under a new guise [31].

This illustrates the following broader point: global sustainability efforts intersect with historical inequities and development aspirations. Demands to halt fossil extraction in the Global South raise issues of climate justice—who bears the burden of transition—and may face resistance unless accompanied by robust support for alternative development pathways [32]. Recognizing these geopolitical and justice dimensions is crucial to any comprehensive framework for fossil infrastructure deactivation. It underscores that sustainability transitions must integrate environmental imperatives with the rights to development and equity for less industrialized countries and communities.

Conceptually, then, fossil infrastructure deactivation can be seen as a process of socio-technical regime destabilization in pursuit of sustainability [33]. It involves undoing deeply embedded systems of fossil energy provision and the social contracts built around them. Scholars of sustainability transitions have begun to explore concepts like “exnovation”—the purposeful removal of harmful technologies—as a complement to innovation. Unlike spontaneous market turnover, exnovation demands political will, strategic interventions, and inclusive planning [34].

It involves asking difficult questions, such as the following: How do we decommission coal plants or oil fields in ways that minimize economic shocks and worker displacement? How can institutions dismantle assets that still hold private value but impose a public climate cost? What new governance arrangements can facilitate the wind-down of an industry? These questions push sustainability transition theory beyond techno-economic modelling and policy analysis into the realm of power struggles, compensation schemes, and social confrontation.

In this article, we define fossil infrastructure deactivation as the deliberate, operational process of shutting down, disabling, or dismantling fossil fuel infrastructures, such as coal-fired power plants, oil wells, or gas pipelines. This concept should be distinguished from exnovation, since the latter, as described above, sets the strategic and normative direction for transitions through, for example, mechanisms such as subsidy removal or divestment campaigns, while deactivation constitutes their infrastructural and material expression.

In short, infrastructure deactivation is what physically interrupts fossil energy flows, whereas exnovation reconfigures the conditions that made those flows dominant in the first place. We adopt this distinction to sharpen the article’s analytical focus on infrastructure as both a site and a stake in sustainability transitions, while situating it within the wider socio-political processes that enable or constrain systemic change.

In summary, fossil infrastructure deactivation is not an automatic outcome of building more renewables. It is a transformative project in its own right—one that entails disrupting entrenched networks of agents and meanings and dismantling the fossil infrastructure they support. These persist not only because alternatives are insufficient, but because they are actively upheld by fossil blocs. Deactivation, therefore, must be understood as both a material and a political act: not only shutting down mines and rigs, but also dismantling the power structures that sustain them. Crucially, it must also be a just act; attention to who wins or loses will determine the viability of fossil infrastructure deactivation.

3. Limitation of Conventional Approaches to Sustainability Transitions

Studying the deactivation of fossil infrastructure presents unique analytical and methodological challenges. Traditional approaches in energy transitions—often grounded in technical–economic analysis or policy tools—struggle to fully capture the political, social, and cultural complexities of deliberate deactivation. In this section, we highlight the limitations of dominant methods to clarify the urgency of an alternative approach—like the one we propose—that places the contested processes of fossil infrastructure deactivation at the heart of sustainability transitions.

Much energy and transition modelling implicitly treats the decline of fossil assets as a smooth, optimization-driven outcome. For example, integrated assessment models might “retire” coal plants in a scenario once they become uneconomic or when carbon prices reach a certain threshold. While useful for macro-level projections, such models abstract away the very forces that often impede or accelerate real-world dismantlement, such as lobbying, community resistance, policy and carbon lock-ins, and the vagaries of political will. Techno-economic models tend to assume rational agents and efficient markets, thereby underestimating how power imbalances or institutional inertia can cause misalignment between what should happen for cost-optimal mitigation and what does happen.

For instance, modelers might be puzzled by why a country continues to build coal plants despite cheap solar. This illustrates the need for a richer analytical and methodological lens, one capable of examining the institutional interests and geopolitical dynamics that drive such decisions.

Another common approach is the case study of individual transitions, for example, examining how a particular city closed its coal plant. While invaluable for detail, isolated case studies can fall short when it comes to generalizability or to capturing cross-scale interactions. They might tell us what happened in one instance but not fully why it succeeded there and failed elsewhere. Comparative methods can improve on this by identifying patterns across cases; yet even then, if analyses remain confined to formal variables (such as policy types or economic indicators), then they might miss under-the-radar dynamics like informal networks or narrative frames.

Quantitative social science tools—like regression analysis on factors influencing policy outcomes—also meet limits in this context due to data availability and the uniqueness of many infrastructure deactivation processes. There are only so many instances of, for example, an oil ban to include in a dataset, and each may be highly context-dependent. Moreover, key concepts like “political will” or “institutional lock-in” are difficult to quantify.

This is not to dismiss statistical or model-based research; rather, it is to note that, on their own, such methods risk offering an overly sanitized view of transitions, one that might misidentify the true levers of change. Paradoxically, a purely econometric analysis might conclude that GDP per capita correlates with coal phase-out and thus could recommend growth and technology as solutions, while missing the fact that a grassroots mobilization or court case was the tipping point.

Despite increased scholarly interest in the politics of fossil fuel decline, current approaches remain poorly equipped to fully grasp the dynamics of infrastructure deactivation. Much of the literature continues to privilege techno-economic models, policy roadmaps, or transition scenarios that frame deactivation as a linear, top–down process, usually linked to state targets, market signals, or climate commitments. While such tools are useful for forecasting and benchmarking, they often obscure the deeply political, contested, and uneven nature of how fossil infrastructure deactivation unfolds on the ground [35,36]. These approaches tend to assume clarity in decision-making, transparency in planning, and rationality in implementation, which are assumptions that rarely hold in contexts marked by institutional fragmentation, contested legitimacy, or active resistance.

Methodologically, this has led to the underrepresentation of key agents, mechanisms, and temporalities. Informal and indirect forms of deactivation—such as delayed permitting, behind-the-scenes political deals, local opposition, reputational erosion, or discursive reframing—are rarely captured in formal models. Fossil infrastructures that are quietly shelved, repurposed, or abandoned often escape notice entirely, while public declarations of dismantlement may be taken at face value without the critical examination of their implementation. Moreover, studies frequently set aside the complexity of the social world [37,38] to focus on policy outputs or aggregated indicators, without exploring how decisions are contested or negotiated within institutions or how affected communities perceive, influence, or resist fossil futures.

These gaps are further compounded by epistemological biases. Research in this area has often been shaped by technocratic paradigms and Global North perspectives, which can marginalize place-based knowledge, lived experience, and alternative rationalities of transition [39]. Especially in the Global South, where fossil infrastructures are embedded in complex histories of extraction, dependency, and uneven development, such blind spots can distort both analysis and policy recommendations. Critical elements—such as who speaks with authority, what forms of knowledge are valued, and how power operates through silence or exclusion—are too often neglected [40].

In short, dominant perspectives tend to reduce deactivation to a matter of policy design or technical and economic feasibility, rather than treating it as a dynamic, relational process embedded in conflict, discourse, and structural inequality. A more adequate analytical and methodological toolkit must move beyond one-dimensional analyses to engage with the full range of social, institutional, and narrative forces that shape how infrastructures come undone or persist despite pressure to change. This is the gap the present research seeks to address.

With this foundation established, in the next section, we turn to concrete cases that illustrate how these dynamics of contestation unfold in practice, highlighting both breakthroughs and obstacles in recent efforts to deactivate fossil infrastructure around the world.

4. The Contested Nature of Fossil Infrastructure Deactivation

In our view, there remains a critical knowledge gap about the systemic and antagonistic dynamics that underpin decarbonization, as the overview carried out in the previous section shows. Unlike, for instance, the Multi-Level Perspective [6] or Innovation System approaches [41], which tend to overlook direct conflicts between incumbent and challenger agents, our proposed approach focuses precisely on these antagonistic interactions.

Conventional approaches—based on policy prescriptions, market incentives, and grassroots mobilization [42,43,44]—have proven to be insufficient to investigate the current entrenched fossil fuel trajectories. Against this backdrop, the scientific community is in urgent need of novel analytical and methodological approaches that can interrogate the relational and systemic forces that sustain fossil fuel incumbency and identify the mechanisms and processes through which these forces might be disrupted.

In light of this consideration, we assume that the deactivation of a fossil infrastructure is as much about who drives or thwarts change, and how they frame their narratives, as it is about technical and political feasibility. In this section, we examine the oppositional networks of agents—namely, the previously discussed fossil blocs—and the emerging “deactivation networks” that seek to disable fossil infrastructures. We analyse their respective practices, discursive strategies, and the contentious interactions that together shape the trajectory of deactivation.

Understanding these intertwined dynamics is key to deciphering why some efforts advance while others stall.

4.1. Fossil Blocs

Fossil fuels are upheld by a formidable constellation of incumbent agents, which constitute the fossil bloc. At its core, there are the fossil fuel companies themselves—coal mining firms, oil and gas corporations, shale fuel ventures—which have a direct interest in prolonging the life of their capital-intensive assets. However, these companies do not operate in isolation. They are embedded in what can be described as a wider support complex or “fossil alliance.” This includes financial institutions (banks and investors that finance projects or hold debt/equity in fossil firms), some labour unions (concerned with jobs in extractive industries), technology and service providers (from oilfield services to pipeline construction firms), and elements of government institutions (politicians, regulatory bodies, state-owned enterprises) that see local, regional, and national benefit in fossil revenues or energy independence [32,45].

Media organizations, think tanks, and research institutions sympathetic to the industry can also be part of the fossil bloc, shaping public discourse in subtle ways. Together, these agents build and maintain what one might call the “structure of endurance”, which is the formal and informal systems that keep fossil infrastructure running. Examples include subsidies and tax incentives that guarantee profitability for extraction, bureaucratic permitting processes that favour incumbent operators, and political donation circuits that secure influence over policy. These reinforcing loops have created path dependencies, in which economies and communities become structured around fossil fuel activity, making change disruptive in the short term.

Empirical studies underscore how fossil blocs function. Network analysis, for example, often shows that climate and energy policymaking at the national level tends to be dominated by stable coalitions of elites, habitually linking industry representatives and officials, which can lead to incremental adjustments rather than transformative change. These findings indicate that agents closest to the centres of power can steer decisions toward continuity, while more radical voices are marginalized [46].

Internationally, multilateral forums can exhibit similar dynamics. Research on institutions like the IPCC reveals the role of internal “bridging agents” who strive to maintain consensus, a practice which, while valuable for unified science advice, may filter out more disruptive proposals for fossil fuel phase-out [29]. In effect, incumbents often excel at networked power, leveraging connections across corporate, state, and civil society realms to present a united front against aggressive phase-out policies.

One striking feature of fossil blocs’ strategy is how their obstruction of climate action has evolved from outright denial to more insidious forms of delay and diversion. Today, it is common to see fossil fuel companies publicly acknowledge climate change and even endorse “net-zero” goals, all the while pursuing business-as-usual growth. This reflects a shift to what has been termed “obstruction through co-optation.” Fossil fuel interests frequently adopt the language of sustainability to reframe the narrative and protect their core operations. For instance, major oil companies now emphasize investments in carbon capture or tree-planting offsets, promoting a vision of continued oil and gas use “made clean.” They champion terms like “energy mix diversity” and “carbon management” to argue that fossil fuels can be part of the solution, rather than insisting there is no problem [47].

As Lamb et al. documented, there is a repertoire of “discourses of climate delay” used by status-quo agents to justify inaction or minimal action [13]. These include arguments about economic realism (for example, “we can’t disrupt the economy”), appeals to gradualism (“technology will solve this eventually, no need for drastic measures”), and redirection of responsibility (pointing to other countries or sectors, or even to consumers as the real problem) [48]. All such discourses contain a grain of truth, which makes them persuasive in the following ways: yes, jobs matter; yes, developing countries need energy; yes, innovation is happening, but they are deployed in ways that ultimately deflect, delay, or dilute the push for deactivation of fossil infrastructures.

Concrete examples abound. In policy debates, fossil blocs often invoke energy security and reliability concerns to argue against rapid coal or gas plant closures, warning of blackouts or price spikes if transition moves “too fast.” They stress that fossil fuels are currently indispensable and insist on a slower timeline, during which they lobby for public funding for speculative techno-fixes (such as large-scale carbon capture and storage) rather than committing to phase-outs [49].

Another frequent narrative is that of “fairness,” but it is framed in a way that favours delay, such as claims that it would be “unfair to workers” or “unfair to certain regions” to dismantle fossil infrastructures without decades of preparation, which, in practice, becomes an argument to extend the life of those infrastructures without clear end dates. While ensuring fairness is indeed crucial, and central to any argument for a sustainability transition, incumbents sometimes co-opt the “just transition” vocabulary to oppose any near-term closure plans, essentially using the promise of justice for workers as a shield against climate policy.

4.2. Deactivation Networks

While much of the literature on climate contestation has focused on symbolic and discursive struggles [50], a growing body of empirical research has begun to trace the concrete, procedural, and material mechanisms through which fossil infrastructures are actively deactivated [2,51]. This signals the need to move beyond ideological opposition and toward understanding how deactivation networks contest, obstruct, and dismantle fossil infrastructures in practice.

One of the clearest aspects is that deactivation is not a singular act but a patterned and strategic practice carried out by deactivation networks. Coalitions of agents motivated by anti-fossil ideologies [52] and composed of Indigenous communities, environmental groups, legal advocates, and sometimes sympathetic insiders engage in a range of coordinated actions aimed at interfering with fossil infrastructures, from project siting to financial flows to public legitimacy. Legal injunctions, regulatory delays, coalition-building, and targeted protests are not isolated tactics but interconnected strategies. These practices form a kind of distributed choreography of contestation that incrementally weakens fossil infrastructures and their supporting systems [51,53].

Resistance does not merely oppose state authority but frequently generates alternative forms of governance from below. Particularly in Indigenous-led struggles, resistance operates as a mechanism of land stewardship, jurisdictional assertion, and legitimacy production. These practices do not simply contest extractivism; they produce new political spaces and institutional alternatives. Resistance becomes a proposal for different governance systems that create ruptures in the fossil regime [54].

Far from being removed from policy and technological discourses, many components of deactivation networks are deeply engaged with the strategic design of alternative policies and technological pathways. Radical movements are also constructive in their engagement, often possessing expertise comparable to those of institutional agents. This engagement complicates the dichotomy between insider reform and outsider protest and reveals how contestation can reconfigure policy agendas and open new institutional pathways [55,56].

Another key insight involves the strategic navigation of scale. Many successful cases of deactivation involve agents shifting between local, regional, and national scales, for example, using local permit challenges to trigger broader political debate or leveraging transnational networks to challenge state-led infrastructure. These “scalar practices” reveal how fossil fuel contestation is inherently multi-level, and how political space can be reconfigured through cross-scalar coordination [54].

Another key characteristic is the “sequencing” of deactivation. Rather than isolated flashpoints, many interventions follow a cumulative logic, citing that a blockade leads to legal action, which spurs regulatory scrutiny, which in turn may attract financial divestment or political attention. Tracing these processes and events reveals how disruption operates as a chain of interlinked practices, not as a one-off event. Understanding these sequences is crucial to grasp how infrastructures are destabilized over time [57].

These themes illustrate that the actions of deactivation networks are deeply infrastructural, woven through institutional, legal, and material engagements that alter the terrain of fossil politics. The deactivation of fossil infrastructures generally exhibits the following features: relationally, arising from dynamic alliances and oppositions; practically, embedded in legal filings, blockades, and procedural delays; and unfolding through processes in time, not isolated acts; mediated through multi-level and cross-jurisdictional actions.

Typically, deactivation networks include environmental NGOs, grassroots community groups, youth and climate movements, certain progressive policymakers, and increasingly, financial activists (such as divestment campaigners and “shareholder rebels” in boardrooms). Over the past decade, a transnational network of anti-fossil agents has gained coherence. Climate justice organizations from the Global North and South collaborate, share strategies, and target common adversaries (for example, coordinating campaigns against a big oil company or a global bank financing coal). This networked countermovement operates across the following scales: local groups might fight a single pipeline, while international NGOs work on treaty proposals like the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty [58]. They are linked by a shared goal of leaving fossil fuels in the ground, even if their motivations range from protecting a local river to averting planetary catastrophe.

Social network analyses of climate advocacy illustrate some strengths and challenges of these networks. Jasny and Fisher, studying climate protest coalitions, found that movements bridging multiple issues—such as connecting climate action with economic justice, racial equity, and Indigenous rights—can attract broader support and forge powerful alliances [59]. The multi-issue alignment (for example, the Green New Deal framing) creates a more inclusive narrative for change. However, it can also strain organizational focus and unity, as different factions prioritize different aspects of the struggle. The climate movement is not monolithic; it spans radical system-change advocates and more reformist elements, sometimes leading to tactical disagreements. Nonetheless, the overall trend is an increasingly sophisticated social environment that attacks the fossil fuel problem from all angles, including legal, financial, cultural, and political

One potent strategy emerging from this social environment is climate litigation. By suing both governments and corporations, activists not only aim for direct outcomes (such as a court order to shut down a polluting facility) but also seek to shift public discourse and investor calculus. A high-profile lawsuit—even if unsuccessful—can spotlight evidence of, for example, a company’s disinformation campaigns or the inconsistency of climate pledges with fossil expansion plans. This contributes to the delegitimation of the fossil fuel regime. Indeed, beyond concrete policies or infrastructure battles, a key objective of deactivation networks has been to erode the social license to operate [60] of fossil fuel companies to recast them from engines of progress to perpetrators of harm. Johnstone and Kivimaa termed this “discursive disruption”, which means that agents of deactivation deliberately challenge the cultural narratives that portray fossil infrastructure as normal or beneficial [33].

Deactivation networks also operate within the halls of finance. The fossil fuel divestment campaign—which began on US college campuses about a decade ago—has grown into a global movement convincing universities, churches, pension funds, and even sovereign wealth funds to pull investments from coal, oil, and gas companies. By 2023, institutions managing over USD 40 trillion had committed to some form of fossil fuel divestment [61]. While the direct financial impact is debatable—many new investors step in to buy those shares—the symbolic and political impact is significant. Divestment normalizes the view that fossil fuels are risky and unethical business. It puts CEOs on the defensive and pressures companies to at least feign climate responsiveness. Shareholder resolutions and activist investors have also scored notable wins. For example, in 2021, a tiny hedge fund won seats on ExxonMobil’s board in a bid to force the oil giant to reckon with climate realities. This kind of insider disruption indicates that, even within capitalism’s core institutions, agents of deactivation are strategically manoeuvring to steer capital away from fossil infrastructure.

5. Case-Based Insights: Global Trends in Fossil Infrastructure Deactivation

Recent cases provide instructive insights into the drivers and constraints of fossil infrastructure deactivation. These examples—spanning industrialized and developing contexts—demonstrate how political, economic, and societal forces converge in attempts to retire fossil assets. By examining them, we can discern emerging patterns of success and conflict in pursuing sustainability transitions through fossil infrastructure deactivation. The cases presented below are illustrative and are intended to highlight key mechanisms and the broader significance of deactivation processes. The lessons drawn serve only to enrich the ensuing discussion. In other words, we do not present fully-fledged case studies but rather illustrative examples to better define and situate the analytical approach this article develops, one that offers the analytical and methodological tools to investigate in-depth case studies of fossil infrastructure deactivation.

5.1. Illustrative Case Studies

1.

Keystone XL Pipeline Cancellation (U.S, Canada)

Infrastructure: The Keystone XL pipeline was a proposed 1947 km cross-border project designed to transport more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta, Canada, to Nebraska, US.

Deactivation mechanism: The project was formally terminated in June 2021 after former U.S. President Joe Biden revoked the key presidential permit on his first day in office, citing climate and environmental concerns. This decision followed more than a decade of sustained resistance led by Indigenous communities, environmental groups, and landowners. The opposition campaign mobilized legal challenges, direct action, and discursive strategies that framed the pipeline as a threat to climate stability, Indigenous sovereignty, and water security [62,63].

Significance: Keystone XL represents a prominent case of pre-operational fossil infrastructure deactivation, achieved through the convergence of grassroots mobilization and executive political intervention. The case illustrates how coordinated, multi-scalar action and discursive reframing can delegitimize proposed infrastructure before construction begins. By disrupting both the institutional and narrative foundations of the fossil bloc, the campaign succeeded in halting a major project without the need for physical dismantling [64].

2.

Lamu Coal Plant Cancellation (Kenya)

Infrastructure: The Lamu Coal Plant was a proposed 1050-megawatt (MW) coal-fired power station planned for construction in Lamu County, Kenya. It would have been the country’s first coal plant and a significant addition to its energy infrastructure.

Deactivation processes: In June 2019, Kenya’s National Environment Tribunal revoked the plant’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) license, citing failures in public participation and an inadequate assessment of environmental and health impacts. The ruling followed sustained opposition from local communities, civil society organizations, and environmental activists who argued that the project threatened both the ecological integrity of the UNESCO World Heritage-listed Lamu Archipelago and the health of local populations [65,66].

Significance: The Lamu case highlights the role of legal institutions and participatory governance in fossil infrastructure deactivation. It demonstrates how environmental litigation, grounded in procedural justice and community mobilization, can challenge both the material development and the institutional legitimacy of fossil fuel projects. The decision to halt the plant before construction illustrates the strategic importance of intervening at an early stage, particularly when legal frameworks are accessible and communities are well-organized.

3.

Shell’s Divestment from Onshore Oil in the Niger Delta (Nigeria)

Infrastructure: The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd. (SPDC) operated a network of onshore oil assets in the Niger Delta, including fifteen Oil Mining Leases (OMLs), pipelines, flow stations, and related infrastructure.

Deactivation processes: In March 2025, Shell finalized the sale of its onshore oil operations to Renaissance Africa Energy, effectively marking its exit from onshore oil production in the Niger Delta. The decision came after decades of legal disputes, environmental damage claims, and persistent resistance from affected communities. Extensive litigation, both domestic and international, as well as mounting reputational and financial risks, contributed to Shell’s withdrawal [67].

Significance: Unlike pre-operational deactivations, Shell’s exit reflects a case of late-stage corporate withdrawal shaped by long-term socio-environmental conflict and liability exposure. While the divestment formally ends Shell’s operational role, it raises critical questions regarding accountability for past harms, environmental remediation, and the capacity of new operators to manage legacy risks. This case underscores the challenges of deactivation in regions marked by regulatory weakness, dependence on extractive industries, and persistent justice grievances.

4.

Civitavecchia Coal Plant Conversion Cancellation (Italy)

Infrastructure: The Torre Valdaliga Nord coal-fired power plant, located in Civitavecchia near Rome, was one of Italy’s last remaining major coal plants, operated by the energy company Enel.

Deactivation processes: In 2022, plans to convert the plant from coal to gas were abandoned following strong opposition from local environmental groups, municipal authorities, and labour unions. The coalition opposed the continued reliance on fossil fuels and criticized the lack of a comprehensive long-term strategy for sustainable transition. With no approved replacement project, the plant’s coal units were decommissioned without substitution by new fossil infrastructure [15].

Significance: The Civitavecchia case illustrates how local contestation—particularly when involving a diverse alliance of civil society agents, and subnational political bodies—can influence national-level energy decisions. By blocking fossil-to-fossil conversion, this case reflects a form of infrastructural deactivation driven by the erosion of legitimacy and community agency. It also signals a shift in public expectations toward post-fossil futures, rather than fossil-based transitional lock-ins.

5.

Hazelwood Power Station Closure (Australia)

Infrastructure: The Hazelwood Power Station was a 1600 MW brown coal-fired power plant located in Victoria, Australia. Commissioned in the 1960s, it was among most carbon-intensive plants in the country.

Deactivation processes: In March 2017, Engie, the plant’s majority owner, shut down Hazelwood citing economic unviability, rising maintenance costs, and reputational concerns related to environmental impacts. The closure proceeded without a direct government mandate, though public debate and regulatory pressures played an indirect role. Following the shutdown, decommissioning and site rehabilitation efforts were undertaken [68].

Significance: Hazelwood represents a market-driven deactivation, where private operators chose to exit fossil infrastructure based on changing cost structures and risk assessments. While not directly imposed through law or protest, the case reflects how environmental liability, aging assets, and shifting economic conditions can drive deactivation in liberalized energy systems. It also highlights the limits of a socially coordinated phase-out, as just transition mechanisms were limited, and the labour impacts remained a point of contestation.

6.

San Juan Generating Station Closure (USA)

Infrastructure: The San Juan Generating Station was an 847 MW coal-fired power plant located in San Juan County, New Mexico. It was one of the state’s primary fossil fuel energy sources for decades.

Deactivation processes: The plant was permanently closed in 2022 as part of the implementation of New Mexico’s Energy Transition Act, a landmark 2019 law mandating the shift to renewable energy and establishing provisions for worker and community support. The closure included a formal decommissioning process, with financial mechanisms for site remediation and support directed toward affected workers and local communities [69].

Significance: San Juan exemplifies a legislatively driven deactivation, in which state policy directly structured the timeline, financing, and justice components of the fossil phase-out. This case demonstrates the role of political alignment and legal mandate in enabling a managed transition, distinguishing it from market-driven or grassroots-led closures. It offers an instructive model for integrating environmental, economic, and social planning into formal deactivation processes.

5.2. Main Lessons

Drawing from these six cases of fossil infrastructure deactivation, we can identify several critical and generalizable lessons about how fossil infrastructure is deactivated in practice.

By and large, the common theme is that fossil infrastructure deactivation is invariably a contested process. Whether through street protests, courtrooms, corporate boardrooms, or other means, the push to deactivate fossil infrastructure encounters pushback from those with stakes in the old order. Yet, the cases also demonstrate that change is possible—sometimes quickly—when societal and political pressure reaches a tipping point [70]. Each successful deactivation or avoided project chips away at the narrative of fossil fuels’ inevitability and opens space for more ambitious sustainability action. The lessons from these examples inform the following analysis of the agents and strategies involved in sustaining or deactivating fossil infrastructures, as well as the narratives they use to legitimize their positions.

• Lesson 1—Deactivation is achieved through multiple context-specific mechanisms

Each case illustrates different deactivation pathways, as follows:

• Legal and regulatory obstruction (Lamu Coal Plant);
• High-level executive intervention (Keystone XL);
• Corporate divestment and withdrawal driven by reputational and liability concerns (Shell in the Niger Delta);
• Subnational political and community resistance to fossil-to-fossil conversion (Civitavecchia);
• Market-driven shutdown due to economic unviability and risk exposure (Hazelwood);
• Mandated deactivation via statutory and legislative frameworks (San Juan).

It is evident that there is no single deactivation mechanism; rather, infrastructure termination is achieved through diverse institutional, legal, economic, and political levers. This underscores the need for flexible, multi-instrumental approaches capable of responding to different contexts and sources of resistance.

• Lesson 2—Community mobilization and social pressure are catalytic forces

In nearly all cases, bottom–up resistance—from Indigenous groups, environmental NGOs, labour coalitions, or residents—played a pivotal role in initiating or sustaining deactivation processes, as follows:

• Indigenous and climate justice activism was instrumental in halting Keystone XL;
• Local opposition critically shaped the Lamu and Civitavecchia outcomes;
• Years of protest and litigation pressured Shell’s retreat in Nigeria.

This underscores that grassroots agency emerges as a central issue in the politics of deactivation, which is often catalysed not by top–down policy alone, but by the relational and contested engagements between communities and fossil incumbents.

• Lesson 3—Legal and regulatory institutions can be decisive

Judicial and quasi-judicial rulings (as in the Lamu case), environmental permitting decisions, and legislative acts (as in New Mexico’s Energy Transition Act) played a crucial role in formalizing deactivation outcomes. These legal instruments provide institutional closure to contentious deactivation struggles and serve as a critical tool for countering fossil incumbency, particularly where administrative governance is robust and accessible.

• Lesson 4—Pre-operational deactivation is often more viable

The Keystone XL and Lamu cases show that blocking infrastructure before construction begins is politically and logistically easier than shutting down already operational fossil assets. This reduces sunk costs, dependency structures, and socio-economic disruptions. Prioritizing early stage intervention and proactive, anticipatory governance is vital to avoid deep lock-in and to ensure smoother transitions.

• Lesson 5—Market and financial pressures are growing drivers of exit

Operators such as Engie (Hazelwood) and Shell (Nigeria) acted largely out of economic risk management, whether due to aging infrastructure, climate liability, or reputational damage. Their decision-making processes are increasingly shaped by financial risk exposure and climate-aligned investment pressure. Deactivation can emerge through shifts in financial incentives and liability structures, signalling the power of market-based instruments, climate-aligned economic governance, and disinvestment pressures in driving fossil phase-out.

• Lesson 6—Political alignment and policy consistency enable strategic deactivation

The San Juan Generating Station illustrates how coherent legislative frameworks—such as New Mexico’s Energy Transition Act—can mandate and guide deactivation, ensuring that it aligns with climate targets and is accompanied by just transition provisions. This case underscores that strong political commitment, expressed through legislation, budgetary support, and institutional planning, is essential for an orderly and just deactivation.

• Lesson 7—Justice considerations are unevenly addressed

While the San Juan case incorporated just transition mechanisms—such as worker retraining—other cases, such as Shell’s exit from the Niger Delta, raised significant concerns about environmental remediation, social accountability, and legacy harms. Without embedded justice mechanisms, deactivation may reproduce or exacerbate existing inequalities. A justice-centred framework—one that includes procedural, distributive, and restorative elements—is essential to ensure equitable transitions.

• Lesson 8—Deactivation is a process, not a moment

From Civitavecchia to Shell, deactivation unfolded over time through contested negotiations, strategic sequencing, and incremental developments. Some transitions—such as cleanup, remediation, or repurposing)—are still ongoing. Deactivation is not a discrete event but a dynamic process involving phases of disruption, negotiation, implementation, and aftermath. Analytical and policy frameworks must reflect this temporal and relational complexity.

Table 1. Lessons from fossil infrastructure deactivation cases.

Lesson	Title	Core Insight	Illustrative Cases
1	Diverse deactivation mechanisms	No single pathway exists; deactivation achieved via regulatory, political, corporate, market, and legal mechanisms.	Keystone XL, Lamu, Shell, Civitavecchia, Hazelwood, San Juan
2	Role of community mobilization	Grassroots action is often the catalyst for deactivation; local resistance plays a pivotal role.	Keystone XL, Lamu, Shell, Civitavecchia
3	Decisive legal and regulatory action	Legal and institutional rulings can formalize and secure deactivation outcomes.	Lamu, San Juan
4	Importance of pre-operational intervention	Blocking projects before construction avoids lock-in and socio-economic disruption.	Keystone XL, Lamu
5	Market and financial pressures	Economic risks, aging assets, and reputational damage drive operator exits.	Hazelwood, Shell
6	Strategic political and policy alignment	Coherent legislative frameworks enable managed, just transitions.	San Juan
7	Justice must be central	Justice outcomes are uneven; procedural and restorative justice mechanisms are critical.	San Juan (positive), Shell (negative)
8	Deactivation as a process	Deactivation unfolds over time and involves contested, multi-phase transitions.	Shell, Civitavecchia

Source: authors.

synthesizes these lessons.

These lessons reaffirm that fossil infrastructure deactivation is not merely a technical adjustment but a multidimensional socio-political project, requiring contestation, institutional innovation, and deep engagement with questions of power and justice. These insights should directly inform sustainability transition research and practice.

6. Discussion

The previous analysis allows for an articulated discussion of the contested nature of fossil infrastructure deactivation.

6.1. Cantering Deactivation in Sustainability Transitions

We began by reframing the sustainability transition narrative by shifting from a sole focus on adding renewables and adopting policy tools to placing the active phase-out of fossil fuels and their infrastructures at the analytical centre. This shift uncovers the often-neglected reality that fossil infrastructures do not disappear on their own. As our work showed, fossil systems endure due to a nexus of institutional lock-in, economic interests, and cultural norms. Thus, achieving sustainability transitions is not an automatic co-product of innovation and policymaking, but it is rather a project of dismantling entrenched regimes. Sustainability, in this view, entails grappling directly with questions of decline, exnovation, and deactivation, marking a paradigm change for fields accustomed to studying growth and adoption. We underlined that technical feasibility and cost-efficiency—while necessary—are not sufficient; the crux lies in overcoming political and social barriers to shutting down the fossil-fuelled status quo. This perspective contributes to sustainability science by insisting that managing the end of life of unsustainable systems is as vital as fostering the birth of sustainable ones.

6.2. Fossil Blocs and Deactivation Networks

Our exploration of agent-based dynamics highlighted that fossil infrastructure deactivation is fundamentally a contested political process. The incumbent fossil blocs operate as coherent forces, deploying multiple forms of power—material, institutional, and discursive—to delay or prevent infrastructure deactivation. We saw how this bloc manifests through concrete networks, such as industry lobby groups influencing policy, financial institutions bankrolling expansions, and even cultural institutions normalizing fossil dependence. Opposing them are emergent deactivation networks, such as climate activists, forward-looking policymakers, innovative entrepreneurs, and communities seeking environmental justice. These systems of counteragents have scored significant wins, yet they face an uphill battle against incumbency. The relational lens proved insightful, since deactivation outcomes often hinge on interactions between proponents and opponents. We conclude that navigating fossil infrastructure deactivation requires a coalition-based strategy that aligns diverse agents—including labour, environment, consumers, and local governments—into a pro-transition alliance strong enough to counter fossil blocs’ influence. This has direct practical resonance, as building such alliances will be key to implementing policies like coal plant retirements or gas bans in the face of pushback but also to laying the groundwork for renewable energy expansion.

6.3. Narratives and Practices

Our work also illuminated the profound role of narratives in shaping the trajectory of fossil infrastructure futures. We found that, over the past decade, the obstruction of climate action by fossil blocs has shifted from the outright denial of science to more subtle forms of “discourses of delay” [13]. These include narratives emphasizing incrementalism, portraying fossil fuels as necessary for economic stability or poverty alleviation, or offering techno-fixes that avoid the need for structural change. Such discourses can be dangerously effective in slowing policy momentum, as they resonate with common concerns and uncertainties. They posit that leaving fossil fuels behind is not only feasible but beneficial for society at large and that the true injustice lies in perpetuating extractive, polluting systems [71,72,73,74]. Our analysis suggests that winning the public discourse is a crucial component of achieving policy change. In practice, this means that communicators and leaders must continue to expose false solutions—such as “clean coal” myths or unproven carbon capture and storage promises—while uplifting stories of successful transitions and just outcomes.

The battle of ideas actively enables or constrains the political space for deactivation measures. At the same time, we also tried to highlight the concrete, procedural, and material mechanisms through which fossil infrastructures are actively deactivated. Deactivation emerges as a patterned, strategic process carried out by diverse agent networks—including Indigenous groups, legal advocates, and grassroots coalitions—through coordinated practices such as litigation, regulatory delays, and public protest. These practices often generate alternative forms of governance, reconfigure institutional pathways, and operate across multiple scales and phases. Viewed in this light, counter-obstruction is also deeply infrastructural; it is a dynamic, relational, and temporally sequenced practice that reshapes the terrain of fossil power from within and below.

6.4. Methodological Innovation for Sustainability Transitions

Dominant quantitative models and top—down analyses, while useful for certain insights, often miss the nuanced social, political, and power dimensions of fossil infrastructure deactivation. We highlighted the need for methodologies that can uncover hidden power relations, amplify marginalized voices, and capture the lived experience of transitions. Such methodologies integrate these facets and will produce richer academic knowledge that can actively inform policy design to ensure that no one is left behind in the shift away from fossil fuels. Ultimately, we advocate for the research community to approach fossil infrastructure deactivation with a transdisciplinary, solution-oriented mindset.

The methodological strategy that we outline in this article—and which must be fully developed in future work—is anchored in the acknowledgment that fossil infrastructures are not simply technical objects to be built, operated, or dismantled, but rather they are dynamic sites of interaction between competing coalitions of agents that compose fossil blocs and deactivation networks. To study their oppositional interaction, we propose to combine three methodological techniques that allow us to reconstruct these dynamics across time, structure, and causality. Path tracing enables the historical reconstruction of key sequences and turning points in the life of a fossil infrastructure under scrutiny, identifying when and how the interactions between the opposing networks escalate, shift, or realign [75,76]. Based on the outcomes of this first step of the analysis, social network analysis maps the relational structures within and across the supporting and opposing networks, identifying central agents, shifting alliances, and allowing network transformations that help explain change [77,78]. The outcome of the two previous steps allows qualitative comparative analysis to compare across cases and distil patterns linking particular practices or configurations to either the persistence or termination of fossil infrastructures [79,80]. This combined approach, synthesized in

Table 2. The proposed methodological approach.

Method	Main Purpose	Key Features	Outcome
Path tracing (PT)	Reconstruct historical and socio-political sequences of fossil blocs/deactivation networks interactions	- Identifies key events, agents, and practices - Periodizes infrastructure development	Defines relevant phases of analysis and contextual dynamics for each case
Social network analysis (SNA)	Map and analyze structures and interactions of fossil blocs and deactivation networks	- Based on fieldwork, shared events, joint documents - Assesses centrality, density, composition	Reveals relational dynamics, strategic configurations, and changes in fossil blocs/deactivation networks over time
Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA)	Identify causal patterns and generalize findings across cases	- Links practices and configurations to outcomes - Uses configurations of conditions for comparison	Establishes causal links; extends findings to other fossil infrastructures and contexts

Source: authors.

, reflects both the empirical demands of our object—multidimensional, contested, non-linear—and the conceptual commitment to treat deactivation not as a singular event but as a process shaped by the unstable and evolving relations between structured fields of support and disruption.

It should be noted that, while our framework aspires to be broadly applicable, its operationalization depends on both empirical and methodological constraints. Deactivation processes are often opaque, politically sensitive, or poorly documented, especially in contexts where data access is limited or where infrastructure decisions are made through informal or closed channels. This is particularly relevant in parts of the Global South, where institutional transparency, archival availability, or researcher access may be restricted. As a result, not all potentially illuminating contexts are equally feasible to study with the methodological depth our approach requires. This limitation is not due to analytical neglect but reflects the structural barriers to empirical research in highly constrained environments.

7. Conclusions

The deactivation of fossil infrastructure stands as one of the defining sustainability challenges of our era. It tests our collective ability to break from an unsustainable past and imagine new systems grounded in ecological balance and social equity. This article has argued that such a transformation will not happen quietly or automatically; rather, it must be willed, planned, and fought for.

For scholars and practitioners of sustainability, a key implication is that sustainability transitions are inseparable from questions of power, justice, and agency. Deactivating fossil infrastructures is not a narrow technical task; it is a broad societal project that must negotiate conflicting interests and values. It requires robust participatory processes, stakeholder engagement, and compensatory measures to ensure fairness. It also demands steadfast leadership in the face of inevitable pushback and transient setbacks such as legal defeats or geopolitical shocks that tempt a return to fossil reliance. The interdisciplinary approach we have taken—weaving together political economy, political ecology, transition studies, and critical infrastructure insights—demonstrates the value of breaking academic silos to tackle such a multi-faceted issue.

Ultimately, advancing fossil infrastructure deactivation is not just about preventing climate catastrophe; it is also about seizing an opportunity to remake our world for the better. A managed deactivation of fossil infrastructures can yield co-benefits, such as cleaner air and water, green jobs in new industries, and the empowerment of communities that have long borne the externalities of extraction. It can also help rectify historical injustices by prioritizing support to those most affected by both climate change and the transition, such as workers, Indigenous peoples, and vulnerable countries. In this sense, fossil infrastructure deactivation is at the heart of the sustainability agenda, where environmental necessity meets social justice.

We conclude with the following final thought: as the world strives to limit warming to 1.5 °C or 2 °C, every coal mine closed and every oil field retired is a tangible step toward that goal, but how we get there matters profoundly. Will it be chaotic, crisis-driven, and inequitable? Or deliberate, orderly, and just? The work of scholars, policymakers, and activists in the coming years will largely determine this outcome. Shedding light on the pathways for sustainability transitions—as we have aimed to do here—can guide the process of deactivation to foster a more sustainable and fair society in the process. The dismantling of the fossil fuel era, daunting as it is, thus becomes a beacon for transformation and a chance to build the foundations of a sustainable world that thrives within planetary boundaries and leaves no one behind.