HMN 2025: How Cutting energy demand could be the cheapest, most efficient route to net zero

Reducing the U.K.’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 emphasize 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 behavioral changes to how people travel, work, heat their homes, and consume goods, could cut total U.K. energy demand by between 18% and 45% by 2050 compared to today.

These demand-focused 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.

“Evidence shows that substantial reductions in energy demand are feasible, yet most national strategies still focus on supporting new technologies and supply-side solutions. Our study shows that when policymakers consider how society uses energy, not just how we produce it, the U.K. could achieve far greater cuts in energy use, much quicker, while also lowering costs.

“Although this finding challenges the current focus of U.K. energy policy, it was deemed plausible by the policymakers thanks to our intensive engagement process,” says lead researcher Maria Sharmina, Professor in Energy and Sustainability at The University of Manchester.

The study uniquely placed policymakers at the center of modeling 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:

• Atomized 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• Self-preservation Society: Low growth and outdated tech lead to a fragmented society, though some communities find comfort in the slower, traditional pace of life.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 the Atomized 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%.

“This co-creation approach bridges the gap between academic research and policy implementation. Our approach embeds policymaker knowledge and priorities directly into scenario creation rather than presenting academic scenarios to policymakers afterwards. These scenarios are not predictions of the future but tools for thinking. They reflect real-world trade-offs that any government would face when trying to reach climate goals, helping them to consider which policies would still work no matter how the future unfolds,” says Oliver Broad, Senior Research Fellow at University College London.

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 the Metropolitan Society and Self-Preservation Society as most realistic, while Atomized 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-centered climate policies that balance technological innovation with social, demand-side change.

The content is provided for information purposes only.