Tackling inequality in times of climate crisis
Chapter one showed that resource, vital and existential inequalities are closely linked with carbon emissions. In other words: Inequality is a social and an ecological issue. While traditional welfare state types have (in all their differences) focused on social issues, 21st century welfare states need to provide new answers that integrate equality with carbon budgets. So far, the social achievements of welfare regimes were built on the use of an unsustainable share of global biocapacity, at the cost of other world regions and future generations
Tackling inequality in times of climate crisis means that equality needs to be achieved without transgressing the planet’s limits when it comes to carbon sequestration. To limit global warming to 1.5 degrees (Paris Agreement), greenhouse gas emissions have to be reduced by 45% by 2030 (compared to 2010) and have to be net-zero by 2050. How the remaining carbon budget is used is a question of equality. There are scientific models arguing that the earth can sustain resources sufficient to meet the needs of 10 billion people if inequality were reduced drastically. (43)
Should the super rich be allowed to continue to jet around the world? Should people living in poverty and deprivation be allowed to expand their currently very low share of emissions? And how could good living standards be mainstreamed for low-income households in Europe while simultaneously reducing their emissions?
To tackle the climate crisis, emitting carbon will become more expensive. Simply taxing resources, however, likely has regressive social effects, as it places a particularly heavy burden on the household budgets of low-income earners.
Therefore, social-ecological welfare states require some kind of redistributive relief measure, such as an annual compensation payment for the lower income groups (44). This shows: tackling inequality within a country and global carbon inequality are connected.
While monetary measures like a progressive income taxation, unemployment benefits or different forms of subsidies are important for a socio-ecological welfare state, they are not sufficient to address inequality, because they mainly look at the individual and her income.
In times of climate crisis a profound change of perspective regarding equality is needed: what kind of infrastructures and institutions (that provide the context for people’s everyday lives) would enable everyone to meet their needs with low resource consumption? Sustainably provided public transport and affordable access to sustainable energy, water, housing, health, care and education help to limit the importance of money and consumption in meeting needs.
Such social-ecological infrastructures encompass much of what individuals cannot afford with money: From greenery in the street and libraries to public swimming pools.
Approaching the social-ecological welfare state through infrastructures has certain advantages over social policy measures solely based on cash benefits (which can effectively alleviate existential need and strengthen individual self-determination). Affordable socio-ecological infrastructures can provide security, offer space for individual lifestyles, strengthen social cohesion and create resource-saving structures.
In the 21st century equality means that an ecological way of living is neither a privilege nor a sign of having too little, but simply becomes a routine, a new normal. For example, if local supply functions, everyday life can be organised without car ownership – as it is already possible today in densely built-up neighbourhoods.
On the outskirts and in rural areas, public investment in socio-ecological infrastructures is still needed to enable new everyday practices: If there are convenient rail connections for commuters, car commuting can be dispensed and new routines can emerge that have a sustainable impact.
Ultimately, it is a question of democratic deliberation what social protection floor should be provided for everyone in the light of a finite carbon budget. However, the data clearly shows that reducing inequality is indispensable if all people should have enough resources to be able to live a good life in times of climate goals.
43 – Millward-Hopkins et al., 2020, 44 – Another way to avoid regressive effects is to implement progressive eco-taxes where basic consumption is taxed less than excess consumption (i.e. a frequent flyer levy).
