Overall, the majority of panel members were willing both to adopt new technologies, and to change the ways existing technologies were used. However, conditionality is crucial for both rate and overall take-up of options, with the real value of the panel’s discussions lying in the detail behind the headlines.
Clear, consistent and sustained government leadership was seen as central, with major changes flagged well in advance so that the public and businesses can plan and prepare. For example, only 28.5% of members actively supported a phase out of gas boilers within 5 years under current conditions, rising to 59% with their conditions in place (revolving around information and advice, reliability and consumer protection, availability of approved engineers, costs, and future-proofing), and a phase out in 10 years, with less than 10% opposed.
Policy choices need to reflect the needs of diverse lives and people, recognising that a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate. For example, panel members placed a much stronger focus on improving public transport and reducing individual car use and ownership in larger settlements, and on improving EV infrastructure in smaller ones – although some forms of car sharing and demand-responsive transport were also favoured for smaller settlements. And while there was strong support for halting or reversing the trend of ever-increasing car size (e.g. through limits on manufacturers and higher taxes for larger cars), there was also a recognition that this should not impact unfairly on those with a genuine need for larger cars (e.g. tax exemptions for people with disabilities or larger families).
Members agreed that new regulations should be more focused on changing the behaviour of producers and retailers, rather than consumers directly – for example there was strong support for regulation that would ensure that electrical appliances and devices were built to last, ‘componentised’ so that if one part fails it could be swapped out, and that repair would be easier and cheaper. But they were also keen to change their own relationship to products, such as hiring or sharing infrequently used products, clothes, devices and tools through ‘libraries of things’.
There was strong resistance to relying on unproven technologies such as engineered greenhouse gas removals until there is better evidence for their capacity to be deployed affordably at scale, with much greater support for reaching net zero by reducing energy demand through combined technological and lifestyle changes and accelerating clean electrification. But this was coupled with a recognition that investment should be made in R&D and that this could lead to economic benefits in the long run (e.g. any increases in airline ticket prices should be ploughed back into developing cleaner aviation solutions).
Individual freedom of choice was seen as important but needs to be supported by vastly improved public information – for example members wanted to be able to choose how to reduce energy demand from heating their homes but felt that even for heat pumps and insulation there was (at the time of discussion) no reliable source of information or advice about options, installers or future implications.
Overall, members felt strongly that the burdens and benefits of the transition must be fairly distributed, with vulnerable groups protected and less affluent people able to access low energy technologies, and that policy choices including subsidies and taxation should reflect this.
With the key findings that one size does not fit for everyone, the Futures Theme directly responded to this with additional panel session on understanding what “Rural Low Energy Futures” look like and how they may differ from other parts of the country. A flexible fund project under the Futures theme has been exploring the panel’s views on how low energy household and transport technologies can work in rural settings. Analysis of data from all citizens’ panel sessions on particular sectors (food, transport, home heating, goods) as well as a new workshop with rural members of the panel have provided insights into adapting low energy technologies and practices for rural contexts.
There is a clear need to ensure ‘rural-proofing’ of low energy technologies using citizen insights. A key challenge raised by the panel was how low energy technologies and practices could work in all locations, not just the urban settings typically imagined in visions of low energy futures. For instance, discussion of car clubs attracted a lot of critique around how this would translate to a rural setting. This raised a debate about how place-specific many of the low energy technologies and practices discussed with the panel were.
Whilst rural places can pose unique challenges for decarbonisation due to low population density, housing stock diversity, and larger distances for everyday travel, there are also many opportunities. For instance, shifting from expensive off-grid oil heating to heat pumps can provide both improved thermal comfort and reduced energy bills. Indeed, evidence suggests that rural areas are leading the way on heat pump installation (Sissons, 2023).
Key insights include a favourable perception of shared mobility options like on-demand buses, to increase the efficiency of fixed line bus services, potentially combined with a greater focus on EVs and community car clubs in rural places. Similarly, ensuring local services were available for the maintenance and repair of home heating systems (both conventional and for newer technologies like heat pumps) was critical.
