In the seventh carbon budget, electric vehicles are key to reducing carbon emissions. nrqemi / shutterstockThe UK government’s official advisory Climate Change Committee (CCC) has now published its recommendations for the country’s “seventh carbon budget”, covering the period from 2038 to 2042. This advice provides robust evidence for the government to set legally binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions over this five year period, while striving to meet its international commitments on climate change. The late 2030s may seem far off, but long-term planning is essential. Achieving these targets requires the rollout of low-carbon technologies and the building of consensus for social change. It takes a long time to plan, design and build a power plant or factory. It could take even longer to change social norms and values around flying, driving or the foods we eat. Setting targets more than a decade in advance gives much needed clarity to investors, businesses and citizens on the direction of travel.Colleagues and I at the University of Leeds’s Climate Evidence Unit have produced a detailed analysis of the nearly 400 page CCC report. One key takeaway is that the transition to net zero is not only possible but highly beneficial. Academic analyses (including our own) consistently support this conclusion, showing that it will strengthen the economy and position the UK as a leader in global climate action. And it will deliver warmer homes, cheaper household bills, reduced air pollution, greater energy security with less reliance on imported gas, and many other benefits.While the report acknowledges the upfront costs, it confirms that acting now will reduce expenses in the long run, with cost savings emerging by the late 2030s and beyond. However, the report significantly underestimates the full economic impacts of the transition, as the CCC’s analysis does not factor in the financial losses associated with extreme weather and other effects of climate change.These losses could be substantial. A recent report by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries suggests the effects of climate change could shrink global GDP by 50% between 2070 and 2090. When combined with the additional benefits of climate action, it’s clear that a “do nothing” approach is simply not an option.The CCC’s proposed plan to achieve this goal, known as the “balanced pathway”, leans heavily on key technologies while placing less emphasis on broader societal changes that help to fully realise these benefits. Compared to the sixth carbon budget report from 2020, this latest analysis gives greater consideration to reducing demand for energy, but the technological bias remains. It’s politically easier to boost electric vehicles than it is to get people to drive less. brian.martin.photographer / shutterstock There is a sense that the report pre-empts what the government would prefer as opposed to challenging current thinking. The problem with this approach is that failing to fully address demand makes the technological transition harder and more expensive than necessary, and increases the risk of failure. More energy must be generated, more car miles need to be driven, and more materials and products must be supplied.The technological transitionSo, what technologies are expected to drive emissions reductions? The first key point is the increasing reliance on technologies that, although they are already available, still need to be deployed at scale. These include electric vehicles, heat pumps for both households and industry, and the rapid expansion of solar and wind power.In contrast, the report places less emphasis than previous recommendations on currently expensive and emerging technologies, such as hydrogen power or “direct air capture” – essentially huge machines that filter carbon from the air. This is very welcome as it keeps the focus on decarbonisation, rather than emitting now and cleaning up later. This shift is particularly evident when examining individual sectors, where the focus is on scaling up existing solutions rather than banking on future technological breakthroughs.Surface transport, for instance, accounts for about a quarter of the UK’s emissions. The report places heavy reliance on electric vehicles (EVs), projecting that they will be responsible for 72% of all surface transport emissions reduced between 2025 and 2050. To put this into perspective, from this point forward, the UK would need to substantially outpace Norway, the current global leader in EV adoption. In contrast, only 11% of total emissions reductions are attributed to people shifting from driving to public transport or walking and cycling. Switching from gas boilers to heat pumps like these will deliver most household emissions savings. Wozzie/Shutterstock Electrification is also expected to be the primary driver of emissions reductions in both homes and the industrial sector, mostly through replacing gas heating with heat pumps. This will be a particular challenge in industries which require high temperature heat pumps, a technology that hasn’t been installed yet.Efficiency measures and unsustainably high consumption patterns receive less attention in the industry section. In homes, improved insulation will reduce demand though there is little space for new and additional energy saving actions.In the food and farming sector, the report identifies three roughly equal sources of emissions reductions: low-carbon farming, reductions in livestock numbers, and land management improvements. The reduction in livestock numbers primarily reflects lower meat and dairy consumption, while the other measures rely predominantly on technological solutions.Overall, this is a very welcome report from the Climate Change Committee with a robust analysis that lets the government, industry and citizens know that the pathway to net zero is possible and very much needed. However, it does place enormous responsibility on some key technologies and their rapid roll out to achieve these goals. As the UK government digests the findings, my colleagues and I would suggest greater consideration of the “social” transformation that examines how we travel and what we buy, to fully unlock the benefits of net zero.Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.John Barrett receives funding by the Priestly Centre for Climate Futures where he holds the position of Deputy Director of Policy. He is also funded by a UKRI centre, called the Energy Demand Research Centre where he is the Futures theme lead.