of electricity demand further increased the propensity toward positive responses. More importantly, associated issues such as cost and demand-management did not decrease support. Centrally, participants placed value on
clean, natural, infinite. These qualities (and others) are the things that publics value when it comes to renewable energy and they underlay positive attitudes toward such forms of power generation.
Throughout this report the concept of social contracts as a way of conceptualising relationships between government, markets and public(s) has been applied as a useful way to think about transitional processes. We argue that social contracts can and do change over time through processes of protest, contestation and negotiation, and formulating new social contracts is likely to be a necessary precursor to the enactment of energy system transformations. Here we have provided an indication of some of the core values
e.g. fairness, cleanness. We suggest that acting in ways congruent with these values may offer a basis for the development of a new social contract. Central to this will be the need to pay attention to existing social contracts and the extent to which proposed socio-technological changes interfere with them. In these cases there is a need to think about change in terms of reciprocity and consider how calls placed upon publics to accept changes are being met with correspondent obligations for government and companies. Crucially, the role of companies in meeting aspects of provisioning that would have typically been
to clarify the responsibilities and rights of businesses in processes of reformulating social contracts.
Objective 3
To develop insight into public perspectives on everyday lifestyle changes implicated in different energy system scenarios, both in terms of demand side and supply side changes.
Numerous sections of this report have highlighted how our participants envision lifestyles to be impacted by changes to the energy system. An important finding from this research is even those impacts that could be characterised as inconvenient or negative were not necessarily rejected. As we have previously discussed, our participants recognised the need for change and this was combined with pragmatism about why and how change could be achieved. Yet this is not to say all change was embraced wholeheartedly. For instance, in discussions about supply-side technologies our participants wanted a shift away from an energy system reliant on fossil fuels. Yet in discussions about key energy services (e.g. heating
and cherished demand-side technologies (e.g. gas central heating, petrol cars) are reliant on the fossil fuels our participants sought to move away from. This, of course, is only one example of the way discussions embedded in everyday life seemingly contradicted more abstract level discussions divorced from personal experience. Yet such “contradictions” are highly revealing and do provide a great deal of insight into what is important to our participants and how change can be achieved. For instance, continuing the example of central heating, such discussions revealed the importance of certain characteristics of heat (e.g. high intensity and instant warmth, responsive and controllable) to our participants. There are considerable challenges for engendering and enacting change in everyday life. Constraints, uncertainties, risks, contexts, responsibility, trust are just some of the numerous aspects of analysis that this report has navigated through to unpack discussions by our participants associated with everyday lifestyle change. What we hope to have made clear are not just the reasons
energy system, but also the ways in which transitions can be facilitated at different scales ranging from the macro level (i.e. national government and industry) down to the micro-level (i.e. how individuals or small groups can be supported to make changes). That change needed to be targeted at all levels was both desired and understood by our participants.
As highlighted in a number of sections responsibility for various aspects of transition were located across public, industry and government, rather than pertaining to one group or sector. Our participants voiced their own responsibilities in transitions across multiple forms of change and in many senses positioned themselves as
having an integral role, which in general was one they were accepting of. They also simultaneously expressed concerns about the limits to their role and the need for wider changes to occur to create opportunities for expressions of more sustainable choices. For example, there were changes that needed to occur that were beyond their range of action, like infrastructures for electric vehicles, or in the development of possibilities for different purchasing decisions particularly for expensive items that were changed irregularly. This related to a general sense of the importance of reciprocity between state, publics and (energy) companies. In addition, publics expressed frustration with what they saw as messages from government conflicting with the actions of both the institution and high profile individuals within government. Accordingly, publics desire government to
(Durrant, 2008), that match political rhetoric. This in turn
give a clear steer to publics regarding the importance of the imperatives for change.