{"id":115752,"date":"2026-07-03T10:41:40","date_gmt":"2026-07-03T08:41:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sonnenseite.com\/?p=115752"},"modified":"2026-07-03T10:41:41","modified_gmt":"2026-07-03T08:41:41","slug":"using-less-living-better-demand-side-climate-action-wins-public-support","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sonnenseite.com\/en\/future\/using-less-living-better-demand-side-climate-action-wins-public-support\/","title":{"rendered":"Using less, living better: Demand-side climate action wins public support"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A new IIASA-led study finds that climate strategies that cut energy and resource demand tend to improve quality of life across a broader range of dimensions than supply-side alternatives and shows that communicating these wider benefits can strengthen public support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate strategies are still judged largely across two dimensions: how much they cost and how many tonnes of CO\u2082 they save. A new study published in Communications Sustainability<\/em> argues that this narrow lens overlooks much of what is at stake \u2013 and much of what the public actually cares about.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An international team led by IIASA within the Energy Demand changes Induced by Technological and Social innovations (EDITS)<\/a> network assessed how six climate mitigation strategies in buildings, transport, and industry affect six dimensions of quality of life, from household income and jobs, to health, energy security, and fairness. Using energy-system simulations for 18 countries, the researchers compared supply-side strategies (cleaner fuels and technologies, including heat pumps, electric vehicles, and hydrogen substitution) with demand-side strategies (using less energy and materials through insulation and thermostat adjustments in buildings, modal shifts in transport, and greater material efficiency in industry). Each strategy was designed to deliver an identical 10% cut in greenhouse gas emissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study is among the first to combine these objective modeling results with evidence from public surveys using the same strategies and impact data, allowing researchers to compare quantified quality-of-life benefits with citizens\u2019 perceptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Mitigating climate change is too often framed as a burden, when in fact it can raise people’s quality of life,” says study lead Arnulf Grubler<\/a>, Distinguished Emeritus Research Scholar at IIASA. “Strategies that reduce how much energy and materials we use deliver benefits across a remarkably broad range, including cleaner air, greater energy security, and fairer outcomes for poorer households, yet these gains remain consistently undervalued in policy debates.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All six strategies improved quality of life, but demand-side options scored slightly higher across a wider set of dimensions. Among the demand-side measures examined, improvements in building efficiency through insulation and modest thermostat adjustments emerged as the most robust performer across the study\u2019s sensitivity tests. The authors caution that their estimates, if anything, understate the true benefits, since the analysis could not capture the full spectrum of wellbeing effects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“By modeling supply- and demand-side strategies that achieve exactly the same emissions cut across 18 very different countries, we could compare them on a level playing field,” says coauthor Nuno Bento of the University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE-IUL), who developed the simulation tool. “What stands out is how widely the benefits are shared \u2013 both higher- and lower-income countries stand to gain, which matters for international climate negotiations.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The team then tested a widespread assumption: that people reject demand-side measures because these require personal effort, time, and money. Representative surveys in the Netherlands, Brazil, and China \u2013 countries with different income levels and positions in the climate debate \u2013 found the opposite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“People expected both supply and demand-side strategies to improve their lives and found them acceptable in all three countries,” note coauthors Linda Steg (University of Groningen) and Anne van Valkengoed (Wageningen University), who designed the surveys. “And simply showing people the evidence made their views more positive, highlighting the importance of assessing and communicating climate action beyond emissions reductions and economic costs.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The results challenge the common assumption that demand-side climate action is unpopular and suggest that communicating wider quality-of-life benefits could strengthen public support. The findings also carry clear messages for policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDemand-side strategies deserve more weight in policy portfolios than they currently receive, and transparently communicating their quality-of-life benefits can build public support,\u201d notes coauthor Benigna Boza-Kiss<\/a>, a Research Scholar in the IIASA Energy, Climate, and Environment Program and EDITS network coordinator. \u201cThe fact that both richer and poorer countries gain could help break the \u2018developed versus developing\u2019 stalemate in climate talks,\u201d she concludes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study was carried out under the Energy Demand changes Induced by Technological and Social innovations (EDITS) network, “Well-with-Low” fast-track project, coordinated by RITE and IIASA and funded by Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n