The undervalued quality-of-life benefits of demand-side energy and climate strategies
需要側のエネルギー・気候戦略の過小評価された生活の質の便益 (AI 翻訳)
Arnulf Grübler, Linda Steg, Nuno Bento, Benigna Boza‐Kiss, Simon De Stercke, David McCollum, Sascha Nick, Shonali Pachauri, Anne M. van Valkengoed, Caroline Zimm, Tiago Louro Alves, Chao Qin
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、需要側と供給側の気候戦略が生活の質に与える影響を、エネルギーシステムモデルと国際調査を用いて評価。需要側戦略は幅広い側面で良好な結果を示し、政策立案に生活の質の考慮を組み込む重要性を指摘。
English
This study assesses how demand-side and supply-side climate strategies affect quality of life using energy system models and surveys in three countries. Demand-side strategies perform better across multiple quality-of-life dimensions, highlighting the need to incorporate such considerations into climate policy.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本でもGX政策において需要側対策（省エネ・行動変容）の促進が重要視される中、生活の質向上という便益を定量的に示す本研究成果は、国民の受容性向上や政策設計に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
The global climate policy discourse increasingly emphasizes co-benefits beyond emissions reduction. This study provides cross-country evidence that demand-side strategies outperform supply-side ones on quality-of-life metrics, reinforcing the ISSB/CSRD push for comprehensive sustainability reporting.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Integrates energy system modeling with perceived quality-of-life benefits, offering a methodology for broader policy evaluation.
🏢実務担当者:Provides evidence to communicate the co-benefits of demand-side measures to stakeholders and support internal strategy.
🏛政策担当者:Advocates for including quality-of-life indicators in climate policy design and public engagement.
📄 Abstract（原文）
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. Demand-side strategies consistently rank higher across multiple quality of life dimensions than supply-side options according to a multi-country study combining energy system modelling with public perception surveys.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1038/s44458-026-00101-2first seen 2026-07-04 04:39:37
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。