Can we go to deep decarbonisation without reducing demand?

Deep decarbonisation globally appears inconceivable without reducing per-capita demand for fossil-based materials. This can be done through changes in consumption patterns, design and substitution of fossil-based materials. However, more concerted governance is needed, including that which targets fossil-based supply and limits planned obsolescence.

It appears impossible to achieve deep decarbonisation without dietary shifts away from emissions-intensive meat and dairy products. In the case of basic materials, technical fixes and sustained demand levels may be conceivable in theory, at least in the European context. Per capita demand for materials such as steel, paper and plastics has already stopped growing here. However, increasing the global per capita use to European levels is untenable since it would put tremendous pressure on resources and the environment. The urgency of reducing emissions is a strong argument for finding ways to reduce per capita demand for fossil-based materials, in addition to decarbonising supply chains.

Firstly, demand for fossil-based materials can be reduced through changes in consumption patterns, for example, shifting to plant-based diets or avoiding unnecessary packaging. Supply-side initiatives such as plastic-free stores create spaces that both satisfy and promote new ways of consuming [see Zero-waste stores case study]. Secondly, demand for materials can be reduced through material efficiency and design, e.g. using light-weight steel constructions [see MX3D case study]. Thirdly, material substitution will reduce demand for a specific material and increase demand for its substitute. For example, fossil-based plastic can be replaced by bio-based plastic [see Tierra case study] or paper [see DuraSense case study], and milk can be substituted by oat-based products [see Oatly case study].

However, environmental implications of reducing demand are not straightforward. Reduced or paper packaging can also shorten a product’s shelf live, replacing steel can lead to pressure on biomass resources, and using a substitute material might bring other environmental problems like loss of biodiversity. Thus, while alternatives that enable reduced use of materials are important for deep decarbonisation, they also require further research and cautious implementation. 

Material demand today is governed mainly in indirect ways. Targeting consumer demand puts the responsibility on consumers and may negatively affect less well-off population groups while it does not necessarily change the path dependency of fossil-based supply. There are private governance initiatives where stakeholders join forces to promote, for example, protein-based diets [see Green Protein Alliance case study] or voluntary certification schemes in construction [see BREEAM case study]. However, more concerted governance effort is needed for deep decarbonisation. City planning, building codes and restricting planned obsolescence would be important areas for such effort.