Policymaker-led scenarios and public dialogue facilitate energy demand analysis for net-zero futures – Nature

Executive Summary

A demand-focused energy scenario analysis, co-designed and led by UK policymakers, was undertaken to evaluate pathways to the nation’s 2050 net-zero target, a key component of its commitment to Sustainable Development Goal 13 (Climate Action). The process produced four distinct societal futures, which were subsequently evaluated through public dialogue. The analysis reveals that scenarios prioritizing reduced energy demand result in significant benefits aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Notably, final energy demand is projected to decrease by 18-45% by 2050. Technology-centric, high-growth pathways are projected to have system costs 20-100% higher than lower-demand alternatives, highlighting a critical trade-off for SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy). This research demonstrates that intensive co-creation with policymakers can challenge conventional policy assumptions and integrate energy demand considerations into mainstream climate mitigation strategies, offering a replicable approach for global efforts to achieve the SDGs.

Introduction: Bridging Policy and Research for Sustainable Energy Futures

The Imperative for Demand-Side Climate Action (SDG 13, SDG 7)

Achieving international and national climate goals, central to SDG 13 (Climate Action), necessitates substantial reductions in energy demand. Evidence suggests that demand reductions of up to 50% by 2050 are feasible without compromising quality of life. However, a persistent gap exists between academic research advocating for such reductions and the scarcity of corresponding policies. National strategies often prioritize supply-side technological solutions, such as electrification, while overlooking the structural and societal shifts required to fundamentally reduce energy consumption. This oversight hinders progress towards SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) by potentially locking in high-cost, high-resource infrastructure.

A Collaborative Framework for Policy-Relevant Scenarios (SDG 17)

To address this policy gap, this study employed a policymaker-led process for scenario development, representing a form of multi-stakeholder partnership advocated by SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). By replacing traditional academic-led design with a co-creation process involving policymakers, energy-system modellers, and the public, the research ensures that the resulting scenarios reflect governmental perspectives, priorities, and implicit knowledge of energy governance. This approach aims to make demand-side analysis more pragmatic and policy-relevant, avoiding outcomes perceived as purely theoretical or ideological. The UK serves as a case study, but the collaborative methodology has international relevance for integrating academic research into policy circles to accelerate global climate action.

Co-Designing Net-Zero Scenarios for the United Kingdom

Framework and Key Drivers

The scenario development process integrated existing literature with policymaker knowledge to identify and rank drivers of future energy demand. This collaborative exercise resulted in the identification of two dominant uncertainty axes that frame four distinct future pathways:

• Social Cohesion and Institutional Trust: The strength of connections between individuals, institutions, and businesses.
• Economic Growth and Technological Progress: The extent to which societies harness economic growth and new technologies.

Four Societal Futures for 2050

The co-created narratives describe four plausible but challenging societal futures for the UK, each with different implications for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

1. Atomized Society: Characterized by low social cohesion and high technological growth. A highly digital, individualistic society with high consumption and significant inequality, posing challenges for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
2. Metropolitan Society: High social cohesion and high technological growth. Assumes decoupling of economic growth from emissions and material use, with trusted AI and automation enabling low-carbon lifestyles by design, aligning with aspirations for SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure).
3. Slow Lane Society: High social cohesion and low economic growth. Society prioritizes well-being and environmental outcomes over consumption, with a focus on repair and maintenance, reflecting the principles of SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).
4. Self-Preservation Society: Low social cohesion and low economic growth. A future of repeated recessions and inability to capitalize on technological opportunities, hindering progress on SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

Modelling Analysis: Energy Systems and Sustainable Development Implications

Final Energy Consumption and Climate Action (SDG 7, SDG 13)

The modelling results indicate that a demand-centric framework leads to systematically lower final energy consumption by 2050 across all scenarios compared to current levels. Reductions range from 18% (Atomized Society) to 45% (Slow Lane Society). These findings underscore that even within policy frameworks favouring economic growth, a focus on demand can temper future energy needs. This directly supports the objectives of SDG 7 by reducing the overall scale of the required energy system and contributes to SDG 13 by making emission reduction targets more attainable.

Reliance on Carbon Removal and Technological Risk (SDG 9, SDG 13, SDG 15)

Achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 remains challenging in all scenarios, with heavy reliance on both engineered and land-based Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies. High-growth futures (Atomized and Metropolitan) require 75% more engineered removals than the lower-demand Slow Lane scenario. This links economic growth paradigms directly to a high-risk dependency on technologies not yet proven at scale, a critical consideration for SDG 9 (Innovation) and SDG 13 (Climate Action). Furthermore, the required land-use conversion for energy crops and forestry has significant implications for SDG 15 (Life on Land).

Infrastructure Pathways and Investment Lock-in (SDG 9, SDG 11)

The scenarios reveal starkly different futures for infrastructure, with major implications for SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

• Electricity Demand: Varies by over 200%, from 490 TWh (Slow Lane) to 1,060 TWh (Atomized), implying vastly different needs for generation capacity and grid investment.
• Residential Heating: Futures diverge significantly between widespread hydrogen uptake (Atomized), communal district heating (Metropolitan, Slow Lane), or deep electrification (Self-Preservation). These pathways require different, and potentially mutually exclusive, near-term infrastructure decisions, highlighting the risk of costly lock-in.

System Costs and Economic Viability (SDG 7, SDG 8)

The analysis provides clear economic insights into the benefits of futures with reduced energy demand. By 2050, the annual system cost of a high-consumption, high-technology scenario (Atomized) is more than double that of a lower-demand scenario (Slow Lane). While the Metropolitan Society scenario suggests high growth is possible at a lower cost than Atomized, it remains over 20% more expensive than Slow Lane. This finding directly addresses SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) by demonstrating that lower energy demand is the most cost-effective path to net-zero. It also challenges the conventional policy assumption within SDG 8 that high economic growth is the only route to prosperity, suggesting that alternative models focused on well-being can deliver climate goals more affordably.

Public Deliberation on Sustainable Futures

Citizen Perspectives on Plausibility and Impact

Public dialogue revealed that citizens judged the plausibility of scenarios based on their similarity to the present day. The net-zero target itself was viewed as less realistic in high-consumption scenarios. Participants identified four key conditions necessary for a plausible transition:

• Substantial investment
• Workforce re-skilling
• Changes in diet
• Changes in business practices

Aligning Policy with Public Values for Health and Equity (SDG 3, SDG 10)

Participants expressed both hope and concern regarding the scenarios’ impacts, particularly on health, equity, and personal agency. Advanced technology in the Atomized Society raised fears of social isolation, a threat to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). Concerns about unequal impacts based on income and location were prominent, highlighting the importance of a just transition that aligns with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Regardless of the scenario, the public expressed a desire for a consultative, place-based approach to the net-zero transition, reinforcing the need for inclusive governance structures as part of SDG 17.

Conclusion: Advancing Demand-Led Policies for Global Goals

Key Findings and Policy Recommendations

This research demonstrates that intensive co-creation between academic and policy communities can successfully place demand-side solutions on the policy agenda. The process yielded scenarios with substantial energy demand reductions (18-45%), reinforcing the case for their inclusion in net-zero strategies. Key findings include:

1. Demand Reduction is Cost-Effective: Lower-demand pathways are significantly more affordable, reducing the financial burden of the energy transition and supporting SDG 7.
2. Reduced Technological Risk: Focusing on demand reduces reliance on unproven, large-scale technologies like CDR, creating lower-risk pathways to achieving SDG 13.
3. Policy Relevance is Achievable: A policymaker-led process can challenge prevailing views on consumption and growth while producing outcomes that are seen as pragmatic and relevant within government.

International Relevance and Future Directions (SDG 17)

The collaborative, demand-focused approach detailed in this report provides a valuable template for other nations seeking to meet their climate targets. By creating a space for constructive dialogue between researchers, policymakers, and the public, it helps translate academic insights into actionable policy. This model of partnership (SDG 17) is critical for shaping sustainable and equitable energy systems globally. Future work should continue to bridge disciplinary gaps, particularly by integrating social sciences to better engage diverse publics and ensure that the transition to net-zero is not only technologically feasible but also socially desirable and just.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article addresses several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through its focus on reducing energy demand to achieve the UK’s net-zero climate target. The analysis of different societal futures, policy engagement, and public dialogue connects the core theme of energy transition to broader sustainable development challenges.

• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy: The article is fundamentally about transforming the energy system. It explores scenarios for reducing energy demand (by 18-45%) and shifting energy supply to meet climate goals, which directly relates to ensuring access to sustainable energy for all.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The scenarios are built around an axis of “economic growth and technological progress.” The article analyzes the trade-offs between different growth pathways, consumption levels, and the cost of the energy system, exploring how to decouple economic activity from environmental degradation.
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure: The article discusses the need for substantial infrastructure investments and innovation. This includes developing new technologies like Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), hydrogen energy, and AI, as well as upgrading infrastructure for electricity generation, transport, and residential heating.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The scenarios involve significant changes to urban and community life, including the built environment, residential heating systems (district heat, hydrogen, electrification), and transport systems (public transport, connected and autonomous vehicles), all of which are critical for creating sustainable communities.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The core of the article is its “demand-focused process for energy scenario analysis.” It directly addresses responsible consumption by modeling futures with lower energy and material consumption, such as the “Slow Lane Society” which “prioritizes repair and maintenance over newly produced goods.”
• SDG 13: Climate Action: The entire study is framed by the need to meet “the UK’s 2050 net-zero target” and support “global climate mitigation efforts.” It analyzes concrete pathways and policy choices for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and integrating climate action into national strategy.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article’s methodology emphasizes the importance of inclusive and effective institutions. The process is described as “led by policymakers and evaluated through public dialogue,” and one of the key scenario axes is “social cohesion and institutional trust.” This highlights the need for participatory and responsive decision-making.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The research itself exemplifies this goal. It describes a process of “intensive cocreation between academic and policy communities” and includes public dialogue, demonstrating a multi-stakeholder partnership between academia, government, and civil society to tackle a complex sustainability challenge.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s discussion of energy systems, policy, and societal change, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 7.3: By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency.
   • Explanation: The article’s central theme is reducing energy demand. It states that the developed scenarios lead to “reductions in energy demand of 18–45%,” which is a direct measure of improved energy efficiency and sufficiency on a national scale.
2. Target 8.4: Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation.
   • Explanation: The article explores this decoupling directly. The “Metropolitan Society” scenario, for instance, “assum[es] that material and energy efficiency gains allow high consumption in a future where gross domestic product, emissions and material extraction are decoupled.”
3. Target 9.4: By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies.
   • Explanation: The scenarios rely heavily on upgrading infrastructure and adopting clean technologies. The article mentions the need for “novel (engineered) and conventional (land-based) carbon dioxide removal (CDR),” “fossil carbon capture and storage (CCS),” and new infrastructure for “communal district heat, hydrogen or electricity” in the residential sector.
4. Target 12.2: By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.
   • Explanation: The focus on “demand-side energy reductions” is a strategy for the more efficient use of energy resources. The article contrasts high-consumption futures with lower-demand ones, showing that the latter have smaller energy systems and lower costs, reflecting a more efficient use of resources.
5. Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.
   • Explanation: The article’s entire purpose is to inform and influence national climate policy. It describes a “demand-focused process for energy scenario analysis, led by policymakers” to help achieve “the UK’s 2050 net-zero target,” demonstrating a method for integrating climate measures into policy planning.
6. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
   • Explanation: The methodology is a direct application of this target. The research process is described as a “policymaker-led process with input from energy-system modellers” and is “evaluated through public dialogue” to “strengthen the democratic mandate for these low-carbon futures.”
7. Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships.
   • Explanation: The study is a model of such a partnership, involving “intensive cocreation between academic and policy communities” and engaging the public. The article concludes that its value “goes well beyond this UK-based case study and can inform people-centric demand-side policies internationally.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions several quantitative metrics and qualitative factors that can serve as indicators for measuring progress towards the identified targets.

• Total Final Energy Demand (in TWh): This is a primary indicator for Target 7.3 (energy efficiency). Figure 4 explicitly compares the “total final UK energy demand” across the four scenarios, showing reductions of 18% to 45% by 2050.
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions / Carbon Sequestration (in MtCO₂): This is a key indicator for Target 13.2 (climate action). The article states the goal is “net-zero emissions by 2050.” Figure 5 provides specific data on the amount of carbon sequestration required from CCS, BECCS, direct air capture, and nature-based solutions to meet this target.
• Electricity Generation Capacity (in GW) and Consumption (in TWh): These are indicators for Target 9.4 (sustainable infrastructure). The article notes that electricity demand in 2050 ranges from 490 TWh to 1,060 TWh, requiring vastly different infrastructure investments. Figure 6a details the electricity generation mix by source (e.g., renewables, nuclear).
• Annual Energy System Cost (in % relative to current levels): This serves as an indicator for Target 8.4 (resource efficiency and decoupling). Figure 7 shows that “the annual cost of meeting net zero can be more than halved in 2050 in a lower-demand scenario,” linking economic cost to resource consumption.
• Share of Different Heating Technologies in the Residential Sector (%): This is an indicator for Target 9.4 and Target 11 (sustainable infrastructure and communities). Figure 6b shows the projected share of hydrogen, electricity, and district heating in homes by 2050, indicating the pace of infrastructure transition.
• Level of Public and Policymaker Engagement: While not a quantitative metric in the article, the methodology itself implies an indicator for Target 16.7 and 17.17. The success of the “policymaker-led” and “public dialogue” approach in shaping policy can be seen as a measure of progress in building inclusive institutions and effective partnerships.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article. In this table, list the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their corresponding targets, and the specific indicators identified in the article.

Source: nature.com