Demand-side energy reduction has so far received less policy support than supply-side net-zero technologies, despite the fact that, as this interesting new Nature paper claims, ‘energy demand reductions of ~50% by 2050 compared with today are possible while maintaining essential services and improving quality of life’. That would involve more than just improved technical efficiency of energy use and production, something that is already thankfully underway- although still rather too slowly. It would also mean fundamental changes in how energy is used, with radical reductions in consumption due to new social/behavioural patterns.
The paper notes that ‘policies explicitly targeting large energy demand reductions remain scarce, suggesting that they have so far been disregarded by policymakers owing to real or perceived lack of political feasibility. Instead, national energy strategies frame shifts in demand through an emphatically technological lens, focusing on efficiency gains through electrification and overlooking the broader structural and societal changes necessary to substantially cut the need to use energy..’
To address the perceived ‘persistent gap between academic energy demand scenarios and the scarcity of corresponding energy policy’, in a new approach, academics and policy makers join forces in a demand-focused process of ‘co-created’ UK 2050 energy scenario analysis, led by policymakers and evaluated through public dialogue. It takes more effort, but this paper says the new combined approach is well worth it: the ‘uniquely close involvement’ of policymakers leading the project evidently generated markedly different & positive narratives that reflect policymakers’ concerns while still leading to scenarios with reductions in energy demand of 18–45%, exceeding what policies normally suggest’.
The new paper expands on the method developed by Barrett et al, replacing the ‘academic scenario design’ stage by a policymaker-led process, with input from energy-system modellers. The resultant co-created scenarios are then subject to public discussion, so as to ‘avoid being perceived by policymakers either as ideologically driven or as theoretical academic exercises’. Certainly, academic studies can sometimes be seen as unrealistic/utopian/ideological by policy makers, while policy-led approaches can sometimes be too short term-ist or cautious. And it is claimed that ‘demand-focused analysis conducted in close partnership with policymakers can yield markedly different and more pragmatic scenario outcomes than those developed in academia alone’.
The paper says that ‘by creating a space for cocreation and constructive challenge, our approach brings discussions around the risks and cobenefits of net-zero action closer to policy’. It goes on ‘while these risks and cobenefits have been demonstrated before…the challenge is in translating the research into public policy. Policymakers have a key role in climate change mitigation and hold intrinsic knowledge of climate governance systems and their capabilities. Recognizing this role, our approach adapts an existing demand-focused method to be policymaker-led and develops detailed qualitative narratives of possible demand-centric future pathways. Translating these into structured modelling, academics can then highlight risks that might undermine emission targets, scoping wider than policymakers may initially have expected.’
The paper also claims that the new approach can deliver practical result and savings: ‘demand-side measures can help reduce societal risks by decreasing future reliance on technologies currently unproven at scale, in the context of a policymaker-led framework. Our scenario matrix reflects policy priorities that favour technological progress and economic growth as a source of tax revenue and additional private investment. With this framing, we show that technology-focused futures continue to see growing energy demands, display high reliance on new technology (direct air capture, synthetic aviation fuel or hydrogen) and cost between 20% and 100% more than lower-demand systems by 2050. In two of our futures, unanticipated additions of direct air capture are required to meet net zero. By contrasting these outcomes with the benefits and trade-offs that might have been expected, this work highlighted for policymakers how challenging higher-demand futures could be’.
Convinced? If you have ever tried to ‘brainstorm’ new social futures you do come up against political issues and social assumptions which can make progress hard. For example, evidently in this exercise ‘while participants expected the government to facilitate the net-zero transition and mitigate negative impacts on incomes, health and employment. However, mistrust of government was apparent in scenarios with high levels of advanced technology and automation (‘Metropolitan Society’), which had assumed high trust in institutions in the first place. Regardless of the scenario, the public wanted to see a consultative and place-based approach to net zero that would engage diverse views’.
Well that’s good news- consultation is useful. Especially when we are talking about reducing demand - i.e. peoples energy and material consumption. But will this approach get adopted? Given that it may cost a bit more to do things this way. Well, it may save money in the long term: the paper says that, ‘by 2050, technology-focused systems cost 20–100% more than lower-demand ones’. But is that enough to sell this approach? At a time when energy demand is rising and most politicians are desperate for growth in all things- including energy use? We will have to wait and see. Sadly there was little to cheer about in terms of significant progress on this at COP 30 in Brazil…
Meantime, in the UK, we will have wait to see how the government efforts to cut energy bills pan out. In the Autumn Budget, the Chancellor made much of cutting ECO, the old Tory energy company obligation efficiency scheme, which she said had put £1.7 billion a year on household bills, to almost no useful effect in energy saving terms. However, a bigger change may actually be the 75% cut to the renewables obligation levy charge - with over £2.1 bn in each of the next three years to be paid by the Treasury rather than by power consumers, until the RO ends, as scheduled, in 2029. For now, all that really means is that taxpayers will be tapped instead of power consumers, but this will cut household energy bills in the short-term. So will the ECO cut. Maybe together by £150 in all from April, as was promised. Although we will have to wait and see what the impact of the new 3p per mile tax on Electric vehicle use will be. And also the impacts of the governments other new initiatives, including the new worrying approach to nuclear regulation and to North Sea oil and gas drilling.
Overall all then, not too much sign of energy saving. Yes, ECO was a mess and the Warm home plan may be better, but you don’t have to be a deep green to see that we have to do a lot more to cut energy waste- and also promote more green energy by something like the RO, or rather an extended CfD, as UKERC has suggested, with consumers paying their share.
Comments
Post a Comment