Living Within Limits: Sufficiency and the Pursuit of Low-Carbon Lifestyles

Abstract

Climate change mitigation requires not only technological progress but also changes in consumption and everyday behaviour. Efficiency and consistency strategies – reducing resource use per output and aligning production and consumption with ecological systems – remain essential but have not been sufficient to counteract rising overall consumption. This thesis therefore investigates sufficiency – the voluntary moderation of energy and resource use within ecological limits while maintaining quality of life – as a complementary pathway to climate change mitigation. It addresses the main research question: How can sufficiency-oriented lifestyles contribute to climate change mitigation while safeguarding well-being and ensuring broad societal acceptance? The results demonstrate that sufficiency can be empirically and conceptually distinguished from deprivation. While both may lead to lower energy or material use, sufficiency reflects voluntary moderation grounded in values, whereas deprivation stems from financial or structural constraint. Individuals with higher sufficiency orientation had lower carbon footprints in the transport, food, and electricity domains, independent of income or deprivation. In contrast, energy conservation in the housing sector was often related to necessity rather than value-driven moderation. When heating prices increased during the 2022 energy crisis, households that faced higher costs mainly reported greater financial stress and reduced comfort, not more sufficiency-oriented behaviours. Sufficiency-compatible lifestyles were prevalent across several European contexts. Individuals who combined low carbon footprints with high well-being were characterised by higher sufficiency orientation, stronger environmental identity, and living in an urban area. However, the housing domain appeared to be a particular limit to sufficiency. Voluntary reductions in space use or heating were rare and often appeared related to necessity or living situation. The analysis also found that well-being does not increase or decrease linearly with energy use; high and low energy consumers both reported relatively high life satisfaction. This suggests that low-impact lifestyles can support well-being but that their realisation depends strongly on material and contextual factors, including dwelling type, location, and income. The findings on policy acceptability show that sufficiency-oriented measures can receive substantial support across several European countries. Policies such as meat-free days were generally considered acceptable, which was not the case for taxes. Overall, the results show that sufficiency can contribute to emission reduction and coexist with well-being but is strongly shaped by social, economic, and structural conditions. Sufficiency-oriented lifestyles are more likely where infrastructures enable low-impact choices – such as in compact urban areas with access to sustainable transport and food options. In contrast, in the housing sector, voluntary sufficiency remains limited; energy conservation tends to result from deprivation or structural barriers. Policy measures should therefore support the conditions that make sufficiency feasible and prevent it from turning into enforced restraint. This includes combining efficiency improvements – such as insulation and retrofitting – with measures that allow households to maintain comfort at lower energy use, for example through smaller or shared spaces. Policies should distinguish between high- and low-consumption households: progressive carbon and energy taxes for affluent groups, and targeted support for renovation and clean heating technologies for low-income households.