A new look at Net Zero
In its 2024 Progress Report to Parliament, the UK Climate Change Committee makes clear that the government “will have to act fast” to hit the country’s 2030 target of a reduction in carbon emissions to less than 32% of 1990 levels. Given the scale and speed of change inherent in decarbonisation, social scientists might expect a call to action. To date, however, much of the focus of government policy, and indeed the emphasis of the CCC itself, has rested on technological changes. Where might social science find a role?
As the move towards net zero becomes less a matter of goals and targets and more one of regulations and infrastructure – as well as one of how and what we consume – the possibilities for contestation can only increase. Decades of social science research have shown that conflict and controversy have been, and will continue to be, part and parcel of transition processes.
There is a long history of energy infrastructure projects, for instance, generating controversy locally and at wider geographies. Social scientists have diagnosed a range of factors that underlie the emergence and extension of such contestations: the inadequacies of engagement processes; how matters of risk and uncertainty are discussed and communicated; the extent to which place identities and values are recognised; the extent to which issues raised are treated as obstacles to be removed (e.g. the Nimby accusation) rather than legitimate concerns; scepticism about the motivations and trustworthiness of policy and industry actors, with publics also recognising the play of vested interests. If people doubt that their opinions and concerns are recognised and listened to, see (or perceive) that others are not acting as they should (in other words failing in their responsibilities), or view information as providing a partial, contradictory or incomplete picture then conflict is more likely.
In response, social science research can productively offer insights on building social and political coalitions and partnerships for change, draw lessons about the appropriate design of institutions to facilitate meaningful public dialogue on climate and energy related issues (including how to move beyond one-off consultation exercises to create more enduring processes), and bring to bear innovative creative modes of engagement and dialogue that are genuinely inclusive.
There may be some worries that involving the public slows down change processes. This is far from the case: there is an abundance of evidence that people want to be consulted and listened to and that doing this is more likely to garner their support. Forcing through policies without building a base of support risks triggering conflict. So, as well as improving understanding of different positions, aspirations and capabilities, deliberation also has the potential to build a social licence for net zero action more generally.
Building more responsive policy processes, that recognise and address the evolution of controversy, is vital work but it will not be sufficient. Attempted changes may well fail if they do not take account of the collective identities, values and meanings that are critical in building connections between people and processes of transition. What we know from past and ongoing societal transitions is that change tends to involve particular ‘galvanising issues’ around which coalitions of actors and publics can gather. In this sense, building connections with issues, places, organisations or co-benefits that different communities care about can transform the way a policy or intervention is viewed – recognising that not everyone will be persuaded (solely) by the clean energy and / or net zero goal.
One of the most important focal issues in galvanising support for net zero change will be delivering changes that are genuinely fair and equitable. There is a really strong case to be made by government that advancing social justice and addressing climate change can be complementary processes. Social science research has convincingly demonstrated that the public are open to potentially significant changes in lifestyles to support net zero (for instance, work by CAST). However, it has also shown that one of the necessary conditions for translation of this latent support is that these policies and actions must be equitable – procedurally and distributionally (e.g. Climate Assembly UK). In this respect, interventions must address – head-on – barriers to participation such as the price of low-carbon options (e.g. electric vehicles or heat pumps), and the disproportionate contribution of the richest in society to carbon emissions.
Social science can help to identify these galvanising issues that can build a sense of shared and equitable responsibility, and how they might be applied in particular geographic and sectoral contexts. It can also bring fresh thinking to bear on the practicalities of net zero policy.
‘Mid-level’ actors – people and organisations who occupy the space between top-down policy and individual behaviours are crucial to successful transition processes. Local authorities, service providers, trusted local actors, educational settings, local employers, community organisations, social housing providers (and many more) are critical in establishing and embedding collective understandings of problems and visions for change and building coalitions for change at national and local scales. The Making a Net Zero Society report offers a series of case studies of how these groups and organisations are integral to establishing and sustaining change processes. This aligns with calls for place-based policy and localised governance for net zero that recognise people’s attachments to place and aligns the design and resourcing of policy-making to the scales at which people connect to places. Expanding the powers and resources of actors closer to communities will also play an important role in building trust in net zero goals. These groups and organisations have tended to be undervalued and under resourced in net zero policy. Properly resourced and supported Local Area Energy Planning offers an important opportunity to mobilise and empower a range of place-based actors operating in ‘the middle’ to ensure pathways to net zero that are place-sensitive, equitable and benefit local people.
Perhaps the most fundamental contribution social science can make is to highlight the desirability of a more comprehensive approach to achieving decarbonisation. Current net zero policy, as well as research and innovation funding, reveals a very clear skew to supply-side technological innovations. Much less emphasis is being placed on reducing the demand for energy – despite compelling reasons for this to have greater prominence. Not only are there significant risks and uncertainties associated with over-reliance on supply-side and speculative technologies – such as carbon capture and storage, direct air capture or fusion power – but an emphasis on supply fails to address the roots of energy demand that continue to drive emissions. Furthermore, waiting for some still-to-be-proven solution has become something of an excuse for not supporting the solutions we already have and that we know can work.
Major UKRI investments – such as the Demand Centre, CREDS, CAST, ACCESS – have all demonstrated that reducing energy demand is essential and achievable for a transition to a fair, zero-carbon society. This considerable social science research effort shows that there is huge scope for developing a comprehensive programme of demand-oriented innovation and action – aimed at redesigning how we live, travel and produce and consume goods and services. From this perspective, the solution to the net zero challenge lies more in socio-technical interventions that enable adjustments to how we live and how we power our everyday lives, and less in centralised and purely technological interventions that largely allow business as usual to proceed.
To return to the question posed at the start, social science has many opportunities to contribute to the changes ahead. Given its potential to assist directly in meeting the targets that the UK has set itself – for 2030 and beyond – there is obvious benefit to (more) routinely and actively including social science expertise in government science advisory functions looking at net zero. Beyond this vital work, however, social science has something to say about how we achieve our goals and, by implication, what kind of society a future Net Zero UK might be.
About the Author
Karen Bickerstaff is an environmental geographer, working on how people make sense of techno-environmental risks, and on the political and justice dimensions of transitions – particularly in relation to decarbonisation. She is also working on the governance of place-based sustainability contestations. Karen is a Leverhulme Trust Research Fellow and the Lead on the ACCESS (Advancing Capacity in Climate and Environment Social Science) report Making a Net Zero Society – Follow the Social Science.
Photo Credit: Andreas Gücklhorn on Unsplash