THE 3 GOALS
Our paper proposes three integrated demand-side goals to complement current climate targets by 2035. They are grounded in the idea that climate policy should care not only about how energy is produced, but also about how energy is used, who benefits, and where reductions are most needed.
The first goal is to accelerate improvements in final energy intensity — the amount of final energy used per unit of economic output (GDP). We propose tripling the recent average rate of improvement to 4% per year. This would help decouple energy and material demand from economic activity, reduce costs, curb pressure for costly supply expansion, and strengthen energy security.
This goal is especially important because final energy is closer than primary energy to the services people actually use, such as heating, cooling, mobility, lighting, and communication. Faster progress would also support the spread of efficient end-use technologies such as LEDs, heat pumps, electric vehicles, and building retrofits.
The second goal is structural change: increasing the share of electricity in final energy use much faster than today. We propose tripling the recent rate of electrification to 4% per year. This would raise electricity’s share of final energy to around one-third by 2035 and put the world on a stronger path toward net zero. Electrification matters because electricity can deliver many services more efficiently than direct fossil fuel use, especially when combined with clean generation, better infrastructure, and changes in how services are provided. In transport, buildings, and industry, faster electrification can lower emissions, improve air quality, reduce import dependence, and reinforce renewable energy deployment.
The third goal addresses the activity side of demand: very high and highly unequal energy use. We propose stronger taxes or surcharges on final energy consumption above 300 GJ per person per year. The purpose is twofold: to discourage excessive consumption at the very top and to generate revenue for energy-poverty eradication, electrification, efficiency, and climate investment.
Current energy use is extremely unequal. While decent living standards require only 13–18 GJ per person per year, the highest-consuming groups are far above that level. This very high consumption further has a very disproportionate carbon footprint and makes the countries more vulnerable to energy shocks. The proposed threshold focuses on the extreme upper end of global energy demand. Initial implementation could target lightly taxed luxury fuels, such as private aviation and yacht fuels, as well as exceptionally high household utility use.
These goals are designed to work together. Greater efficiency helps contain demand growth, making electrification easier and more affordable. Electrification improves the efficiency of many end uses and helps clean energy supply go further. Action on excessive demand reduces pressure on energy systems, improves fairness, and can help finance broader transition efforts. Pursued together, the three goals create reinforcing benefits for climate, affordability, security, and wellbeing.
Delivering these three goals would make it possible to meet the Net-Zero targets and align with representative decarbonization scenarios, such as the Low Energy Demand (LED) and the IEA's Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenarios.
The paper argues for tripling current efforts over the coming decade because climate and development timelines are now tightly linked. Without stronger demand-side action, rising demand can outpace gains from renewable expansion and delay structural shifts away from fossil fuels. Acting by 2035 helps align near-term action with long-term net zero and sustainable development pathways.
Do these goals replace existing climate targets?
No. They are meant to complement existing targets on renewables, methane, and energy intensity by adding a clearer and more operational demand-side perspective.
Why focus on final energy rather than primary energy?
Because final energy is more closely linked to the services people actually use, such as heating, mobility, and communication. It is therefore a clearer basis for demand side goals.
In addition, final energy is not affected by inconsistent statistical conventions and upstream transformation losses that do not directly correspond to the energy services available to people. In fact, renewable energy accounting remains inconsistent, with hydro counted by physical output (electricity generated) and other sources by the so-called substitution method (i.e., as the fossil fuel that would be required to produce an equivalent output of electricity) that inflates primary energy figures.
Are these goals anti-development?
No. The framework explicitly aims to expand access to essential energy services while reducing excessive consumption at the top. It links climate action with decent living standards and human wellbeing.
Why include a tax on high energy use?
Because very high energy consumption is both environmentally damaging and socially unequal. Elevating all those living below decent living standards in the world would increase global final energy use by some 17% (68 EJ) which equals the energy use of the top 2% incomes in excess of a threshold of 300 GJ/capita. But high inequality remains also within countries, as excessive consumption is associated with the consumption of specific types of energy such as jet fuel which are much less taxed than gasoline, the fuel of the masses.
The paper argues that fiscal measures can discourage excess demand and help fund energy access, efficiency, and electrification.
From idea to implementation
Researchers, policymakers, and statistical agencies all have a role in turning these goals into operational concepts, national strategies, and practical monitoring systems. The next step is not only to debate the goals, but to make them usable.