Solar and wind power is growing worldwide, but so is electricity consumption: as a result, renewables are often only added to the energy mix, rather than replacing fossil fuels.
Reducing energy demand would make net zero more achievable, but it recieves far less attention than decarbonisation efforts. This may be due to a perception that managing energy demand would be politically unpopular, requiring governments to make radical interventions into people’s lifestyles and spending.
Oliver Broad, Senior Research Fellow at University College London, tells Alasdair that such fears are unfounded. His team’s research found that the UK could reduce energy demand by 52% without new tech or overly disruptive societal change, and has worked with policymakers and public focus groups to demonstrate political acceptability.
I think it is, at least in the US. You’re asking people to be slightly uncomfortable, mildly inconvenienced, and/or be at a business disadvantage to those who aren’t concerned about conservation. Furthermore, a lot of people’s living situations and routines have been built around cheap energy. Asking people like that to vote for meaningfull conservation will go nowhere.
That’s why, imo, people in western countries won’t change their habits unless the energy market, nature, or the government coerces them. Hopefully the energy market can get them to change before nature starts making its position on the matter known to them personally. And if the government feels the need to get involved… oh boy they’re going to be mad.
Side note, if you want to get a sense of the personal energy waste in the US, make a Nextdoor account and ask your neighborhood what people set their thermostats at. I was mortified.