Review: TT26: Week 5 – Exploring the social mandate for reducing energy demand
by Alison McCookView the associated event for this review
As we rapidly approach 1.5 degrees of warming, the need for rapid and sustained emissions reductions is clear. Demand-side emissions reductions can simultaneously mitigate climate change while promoting sustainable development. Despite this, policymakers have historically avoided policies targeting demand due to perceptions of their unpopularity.
Dr Andy Yuille’s Oxford Energy Network seminar, ‘Exploring the social mandate for reducing energy demand’, investigated these dynamics. In a multi-disciplinary study conducted over two years, Dr Yuille and his colleagues have combined insights from deliberative research with a citizens’ panel with climate modelling to create citizen-led energy scenarios. By identifying the extent, scope and conditions of the social mandate for reduced energy demand, the study provides key insights for creating effective demand-side policy.
The deliberative research process
The panel was comprised of 40 randomly selected citizens, representative of UK demographics. After an introduction, the first stage of the study was a three-part process where the panel deliberated on demand-side reduction in four sectors: products, transport, food and heating. As part of the deliberative process, the panel engaged with sectoral experts to learn about possible demand reduction; had facilitated conversations around potential changes, the key motivators for and barriers to those changes, and the conditions which would underpin public support; and finally, ranked and prioritised possible changes.
The next stages of the study involved creating bottom-up sectoral energy scenarios based on the panel’s conclusions, compiling sectoral models into a system-wide energy model, and receiving feedback from the panel. The various scenarios built on the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Reduction’s positive low energy futures scenarios, and modeled demand changes (1) if all the panel’s conditions for behaviour change were met, or (2) if few or none of those conditions were met.
In the subsequent stage, the panel deliberated on the trade-offs between and within the three pillars of net zero – energy demand reduction, clean power supply, and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) – at different levels of demand reduction ambition. A particularly interesting takeaway was the panel’s aversion to reliance on novel CDR and willingness to support further demand-side reductions to avoid it. To me, this reinforced the under-appreciated social mandate for demand-side measures – as the IPCC notes, meeting temperature goals without reducing energy demand will require vast quantities of CDR.
The study then created a final energy scenario, which would result in a 37% reduction in energy use between 2025 and 2050. 84% of the panel supported at least those demand reductions, with some preferring to go further. These numbers drove home for me how important it is that we stop assuming demand change is impossible – they show it is not only possible, but popular.
Support for demand reductions across heating, transport, products and food
The deliberative process provided insights into citizen views about where and how demand-side changes should be made. For example, while the panel generally supported changes to reduce the energy intensity of heating, there was some deeply entrenched resistance to heat pumps. In transport, I was surprised by the large support for reversing the trend toward larger cars and for reducing flying (with two-thirds of the panel supporting frequent-flyer levies). However, the panel strongly emphasised the need for better integrated and operated public transport to facilitate demand changes, as well as transport policies which are tailored to communities and do not disadvantage lower-income people.
The deliberative process also found high support for changes to product consumption, but much lower support for car-based changes (such as ride-sharing) with concerns around convenience, safety and reliability. Key conditions to facilitate product-based changes included policies requiring repairable, upgrade-able, and durable electronics, shifting social norms, and levering community institutions to build trust. The panel also expressed broad support for reducing total red meat and dairy consumption (with recognition of the co-benefits for health) but stressed the importance of slow change and individual choice. It was particularly interesting to me that they backed a wide range of enabling policies in this area despite its highly personal nature, from regulating promotions and product placement in supermarkets to reducing agricultural subsidies.
Key takeaways
Dr Yuille’s seminar left us with several thought-provoking and practical takeaways. First, there is a clear social mandate for demand-side energy reductions. These reductions are crucial for developing a low-carbon future which is safe, sustainable and prosperous. Most panel members supported making changes to their everyday life to reduce energy use – however, as Dr Yuille noted in his conclusion, climate change is not top of mind for many people. Embracing and emphasising the synergies between reducing energy demand and improving energy security, health, cost-of-living and other social goals is fundamental.
Second, the social mandate for behavioural change is always contingent on a range of conditions being fulfilled. While conditions varied across sectors, the consistent theme was the need for strong, transparent, accountable and participatory government policy. The panel wanted both upstream and downstream policy changes (and were aware this would involve some limiting of consumer choice). As Dr Yuille highlighted, these results “[get] to the heart of the dilemma around demand”: contrary to popular belief that demand-side policy is invasive, what citizens need for demand-side reduction is strong government leadership and credible policy. The importance of conditions for panel members to be willing to reduce energy demand indicates that leaving change up to individuals is unlikely to be successful. Instead, systemic change and supportive governance are both necessary and socially legitimate.
Third, the study demonstrated the feasibility and benefits of combining citizen deliberation with energy systems modelling. As Dr Yuille emphasised in response to a question, integrating contextual social research with modelling can be “super powerful”. The rich data that deliberative research provides on conditionality can help guide policy decisions in sensitive areas, while modelling allows the impact and cost of socially-feasible changes to be quantified. As an interdisciplinary scholar with a background spanning law, economics and science, this particularly resonates with me. Policy is better when it is supported by scientific evidence, and science is better when it incorporates social and physical realities. This kind of integrated research can help overcome the incompatibility with quantitative modelling that has posed a key challenge for incorporating demand-side measures into climate policy.