Reducing the UK's energy demand could help the country reach its net zero target faster and at half the cost compared to relying mainly on supply-side technologies, according to new research by energy experts.
Most national strategies emphasise supply-side technological solutions such as electrification and renewable energy generation. But the research, published today in Nature Energy, finds that supporting demand-side solutions, such as social and behavioural changes to how people travel, work, heat their homes, and consume goods, could cut total UK energy demand by between 18% and 45% by 2050 compared to today.
These demand-focussed pathways would continue to maintain quality of life while costing around half as much as technology-led pathways.
The finding is the result of a unique collaboration between academics from The University of Manchester, University College London, University of Leeds, and University of Oxford and members of the public, which informed a report published by the UK Government Office for Science in 2023.
The study uniquely placed policymakers at the centre of modelling four future scenario designs, guided by the experts. Together, they explored how different mixes of technology, lifestyle, and social change could shape the country's energy system and costs:
- Atomised Society: Rapid tech growth drives high consumption, but it creates a divided society where the rich are protected and the poor face greater climate risks.
- Metropolitan Society: High growth and trusted AI enable efficient living, but this concentrates prosperity in cities, creating an urban-rural divide.
- Self-preservation Society: Low growth and outdated tech lead to a fragmented society, though some communities find comfort in the slower, traditional pace of life.
- Slow Lane Society: Despite low growth, strong community values and high trust promote repair, reuse, and major cuts in energy demand.
Analysis shows that all four futures deliver lower energy demand than today, but reductions vary. The Slow Lane Society achieves the biggest cut (around 45%), while Atomised Society delivers the smallest (around 18%). Energy system costs also vary: the most energy-intensive future could see costs rise 136% by 2050, while the lowest-demand scenario limits this to just 24% compared to today.
Crucially, higher-demand futures depend far more on large-scale carbon removal technologies, which are still unproven at scale, whereas lower-demand pathways could reduce the need for such measures by around 70%.
The researchers also held discussions with members of the public to explore how believable each scenario felt and what impacts people thought they might have on everyday life. Participants generally viewed Metropolitan Society and Self-Preservation Society as most realistic, while Atomised and Slow Lane Societies were seen as more aspirational. Interestingly, while policymakers described Slow Lane as somewhat restrictive, the public viewed it as hopeful and positive.
The team say their approach could help other countries design people-centred climate policies that balance technological innovation with social, demand-side change.
