Demand-side solutions to climate change mitigation consistent with high levels of well-being
Felix Creutzig, Leila Niamir, Xuemei Bai, Max Callaghan, Jonathan M. Cullen, Julio Díaz‐José, Maria J. Figueroa, Arnulf Grübler, William F. Lamb, Adrian Leip, Eric Masanet, Érika Mata, Linus Mattauch, Jan C. Minx, Sebastian Mirasgedis, Yacob Mulugetta, Sudarmanto Budi Nugroho, Minal Pathak, Patrícia E. Perkins, Joyashree Roy, Stéphane de la Rue du Can, Yamina Saheb, Shreya Some, Linda Steg, J. Steinberger, Diána Ürge-Vorsatz
Abstract
Mitigation solutions are often evaluated in terms of costs and greenhouse gas reduction potentials, missing out on the consideration of direct effects on human well-being. Here, we systematically assess the mitigation potential of demand-side options categorized into avoid, shift and improve, and their human well-being links. We show that these options, bridging socio-behavioural, infrastructural and technological domains, can reduce counterfactual sectoral emissions by 40–80% in end-use sectors. Based on expert judgement and an extensive literature database, we evaluate 306 combinations of well-being outcomes and demand-side options, finding largely beneficial effects in improvement in well-being (79% positive, 18% neutral and 3% negative), even though we find low confidence on the social dimensions of well-being. Implementing such nuanced solutions is based axiomatically on an understanding of malleable rather than fixed preferences, and procedurally on changing infrastructures and choice architectures. Results demonstrate the high mitigation potential of demand-side mitigation options that are synergistic with well-being. Evaluation of mitigation actions often focuses on cost and overlooks the direct effects on well-being. This work shows demand-side measures have large mitigation potential and beneficial effects on well-being outcomes.