Helmut Melzer
Everyone is granted the largest house. But how fair is it if a single household posts the same emissions as a family of four in the identical apartment? And by the way, many experts are convinced that an eco-tax - also in relation to housing - is inevitable. What will it be based on?
Ecologically worrisome development
From an ecological point of view, more households - whether they are energy-efficient, insulated or not - are causing more energy and emissions. The forecasts (see graphs) paint a clear picture: for example, the number of Austrian households should increase from 3.7 million in the year 2015 to 4.5 million in the year 2050. However, the number of inhabitants of those households continues to decrease: while 1900 4,6 people still lived together, now it is only 2,2 people. At the same time, the number of one-person households is exploding: according to Statistics Austria they will be 2030 1,66 million 25,1 percent higher in Austria than 1,32 million in 2011. Thus, the living space per person - in recent decades by a third: 1971 was the average living space of a primary residence 66 square meters, 2014 already 99,7 square meters. Expressed in individuals: 1971, every Austrian was content with an average of 22,9 square meters per person, 2014 has grown the living space per person to 44,7 square meters. Tendency rising: In the comparison of the main residences by usable area from 1991 to 2015 shows a strong decrease of small apartments up to 45 square meters, whereas the number of large living spaces from 130 square meters jumped from 402.300 to 918.000.
As far as the facts. The conclusion with regard to ecological justice in living therefore does not mean any restrictions in terms of architecture, style of living or living space, but a limited CO2 account per capita. Ecological justice in housing will not refer to an object, but to individuals or the number of inhabitants. Because one thing is for sure: As soon as ecology is called for, it is fairness to pay.
Photo / Video: Shutterstock, Option.
I understand the problem. But such an eco-tax could, in turn, afford well-earners. Would not that make the social gap even bigger?
No, everyone would pay for their housing situation, ie large apartment, higher tax.