The undervalued quality-of-life benefits of demand-side energy and climate strategies

Abstract

Climate mitigation strategies are mainly evaluated in terms of emissions reductions and economic costs, yet their wider effects on quality of life may strongly shape public support. Here we assess how different supply-side and demand-side energy and climate strategies in buildings, transport, and industry can affect quality of life. We use numerical energy system simulation models to quantify impacts on six quality-of-life dimensions across eighteen countries and compare these with results from representative surveys in Brazil, China, and the Netherlands. Survey respondents value multiple quality-of-life dimensions including health, energy security, employment, income, environmental conditions, and equity, confirming the relevance of a wider framing for climate mitigation beyond carbon dioxide emissions and Gross Domestic Product. Across modeled indicators, both strategy types are associated with overall quality-of-life improvements, while demand-side strategies tend to score better across a broader set of dimensions. Survey results show that people generally expect both strategy types will improve quality of life and view them as acceptable. Providing information on modeled quality-of-life outcomes improves these evaluations. These findings highlight the value of incorporating quality-of-life considerations into climate policy making.