in , ,

The big conversion: APCC Special Report Structures for a climate-friendly life


It is not easy to live climate-friendly in Austria. In all areas of society, from work and care to housing, mobility, nutrition and leisure, far-reaching changes are necessary in order to make a good life possible for everyone in the long term without going beyond the limits of the planet. The results of scientific research on these questions were compiled, viewed and evaluated by top Austrian scientists over a period of two years. That's how this report came about, the answer should give to the question: How can the general social conditions be designed in such a way that a climate-friendly life is possible?

The work on the report was coordinated by Dr. Ernest Aigner, who is also Scientist for Future. In an interview with Martin Auer from Scientists for Future, he provides information about the origin, content and goals of the report.

First question: What is your background, what are the areas you work in?

Ernest Aigner
Photo: Martin Auer

Until last summer I was employed at the Vienna University of Economics and Business in the Department of Socio-Economics. My background is ecological economics, so I have worked a lot on the interface of climate, environment and economy - from different perspectives - and in the context of this I have just in the last two years - from 2020 to 2022 - the report "Structures for a climate-friendly Life” co-edited and coordinated. Now I'm at theHealth Austria GmbH“ in the “Climate and Health” department, in which we work on the connection between climate protection and health protection.

This is a report by the APCC, the Austrian Panel on Climate Change. What is the APCC and who is it?

The APCC is, so to speak, the Austrian counterpart to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in German “World Climate Council”. The APCC is attached to that CACB, this is the center for climate research in Austria, and this publishes the APCC reports. The first, from 2014, was a general report summarizing the state of climate research in Austria in such a way that decision-makers and the public are informed what science has to say about the climate in the broadest sense. Special reports dealing with specific topics are published at regular intervals. For example, there was a special report on "Climate and Tourism", then there was one on the subject of health, and the recently published "Structures for a climate-friendly life" focuses on structures.

Structures: what is a “road”?

What are "structures"? That sounds terribly abstract.

Exactly, it's terribly abstract, and of course we've had a lot of debates about it. I would say that two dimensions are special for this report: one is that it is a social science report. Climate research is often very strongly influenced by the natural sciences because it deals with meteorology and geosciences and so on, and this report is very clearly anchored in the social sciences and argues that structures have to change. And structures are all those framework conditions that characterize everyday life and enable certain actions, make certain actions impossible, suggest some actions and tend not to suggest other actions.

A classic example is a street. You would first think about the infrastructure, that is everything physical, but then there is also the whole legal framework, i.e. the legal norms. They turn the street into a street, and so the legal framework is also a structure. Then, of course, one of the prerequisites for being able to use the road is to own a car or to be able to buy one. In this respect, prices also play a central role, prices and taxes and subsidies, these also represent a structure. Another aspect is, of course, whether roads or the use of roads by car are presented positively or negatively – how people talk about them. In that sense, one can talk about medial structures. Of course, it also plays a role who drives the larger cars, who drives the smaller ones, and who rides a bike. In this respect, social and spatial inequality in society also plays a role – i.e. where you live and what opportunities you have. In this way, from a social science perspective, one can systematically work through various structures and ask oneself to what extent these respective structures in the respective subject areas make a climate-friendly life more difficult or easier. And that was the purpose of this report.

Four perspectives on structures

The report is structured on the one hand according to fields of action and on the other hand according to approaches, e.g. B. about the market or about far-reaching social changes or technological innovations. Can you elaborate on that a little more?

perspectives:

market perspective: Price signals for climate-friendly living…
innovation perspective: socio-technical renewal of production and consumption systems…
Deployment Perspective: Delivery systems that facilitate sufficiency and resilient practices and ways of life…
society-nature perspective: the relationship between man and nature, capital accumulation, social inequality...

Yes, in the first section different approaches and theories are described. From a social science point of view, it is clear that different theories do not come to the same conclusion. In this respect, different theories can be divided into different groups. We in the report propose four groups, four different approaches. The one approach that is much in the public debate is the focus on price mechanisms and on market mechanisms. A second, which is receiving increasing attention but is not as prominent, are the different supply mechanisms and delivery mechanisms: who provides the infrastructure, who provides the legal framework, who provides the supply of services and goods. A third perspective that we have identified in the literature is the focus on innovations in the broadest sense, i.e., on the one hand, of course, technical aspects of innovations, but also all the social mechanisms that go with it. For example, with the establishment of electric cars or e-scooters, not only the technology on which they are based changes, but also the social conditions. The fourth dimension, that's the society-nature perspective, that's the argument that you have to pay attention to big economic and geopolitical and social long-term trends. Then it becomes clear why climate policy is not as successful as one would hope in many respects. For example, growth constraints, but also geopolitical situations, democratic-political issues. In other words, how society relates to the planet, how we understand nature, whether we see nature as a resource or see ourselves as part of nature. That would be the society-nature perspective.

The fields of action

The fields of action are based on these four perspectives. There are those that are often discussed in climate policy: mobility, housing, nutrition, and then several others that have not been discussed so often, such as gainful employment or care work.

Fields of action:

Housing, nutrition, mobility, gainful employment, care work, leisure time and vacation

The report then tries to identify structures that characterize these fields of action. For example, the legal framework determines how climate-friendly people live. The governance mechanisms, for example federalism, who has what decision-making powers, what role the EU has, are decisive for the extent to which climate protection is enforced or how legally binding a climate protection law is introduced - or not. Then it goes on: economic production processes or the economy as such, globalization as a global structure, financial markets as a global structure, social and spatial inequality, the provision of welfare state services, and of course spatial planning is also an important chapter. Education, how the education system works, whether it is also geared towards sustainability or not, to what extent the necessary skills are taught. Then there is the question of the media and infrastructure, how the media system is structured and what role infrastructures play.

Structures that hinder or promote climate-friendly action in all fields of action:

Law, governance and political participation, innovation system and politics, supply of goods and services, global commodity chains and division of labor, monetary and financial system, social and spatial inequality, welfare state and climate change, spatial planning, media discourses and structures, education and science, network infrastructures

Pathways of Transformation: How do we get from here to there?

All of this, from the perspectives, to the fields of action, to the structures, is linked in a final chapter to form transformation paths. They systematically process which design options have the potential to advance climate protection, which stimulate each other where there may be contradictions, and the main result of this chapter is that there is a lot of potential in bringing different approaches together and different design options of different structures together. This concludes the report as a whole.

Possible paths to transformation

Guidelines for a climate-friendly market economy (Pricing of emissions and resource consumption, abolition of climate-damaging subsidies, openness to technology)
Climate protection through coordinated technology development (government-coordinated technological innovation policy to increase efficiency)
Climate protection as state provision (State-coordinated measures to enable climate-friendly living, e.g. through spatial planning, investment in public transport; legal regulations to restrict climate-damaging practices)
Climate-friendly quality of life through social innovation (social reorientation, regional economic cycles and sufficiency)

Climate policy happens on more than one level

The report is very much related to Austria and Europe. The global situation is treated insofar as there is an interaction.

Yes, the special thing about this report is that it refers to Austria. In my view, one of the weaknesses of these IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports is that they always have to take a global perspective as their starting point. After that there are also sub-chapters for respective regions such as Europe, but a lot of climate policy happens on other levels, be it municipal, district, state, federal, EU... So the report refers strongly to Austria. That is also the purpose of the exercise, but Austria is already understood as part of a global economy. That is why there is also a chapter on globalization and a chapter related to global financial markets.

It also says "structures for a climate-friendly life" and not for a sustainable life. But the climate crisis is part of a comprehensive sustainability crisis. Is that historical, because it's the Austrian Panel on Climate Change, or is there another reason?

Yes, that's basically the reason. It is a climate report, so the focus is on climate-friendly living. However, if you look at the current IPCC report or the current climate research, you come to the conclusion relatively quickly that the pure focus on greenhouse gas emissions will actually not be effective. Therefore, at the reporting level, we have chosen to understand Green Living as follows: "Climate-friendly living permanently secures a climate that enables a good life within planetary boundaries." In this understanding, on the one hand, there is an emphasis on the fact that there is a clear focus on the good life, which means that basic social needs must be secured, that there is basic provision, that inequality is reduced. This is the social dimension. On the other hand, there is the question of planetary boundaries, it is not just about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but that the biodiversity crisis also plays a role, or phosphorus and nitrate cycles, etc., and in this sense the climate-friendly life is much broader is understood.

A report just for politics?

Who is the report intended for? Who is the addressee?

The report was presented to the public on November 28, 11
Prof. Karl Steininger (Editor), Martin Kocher (Minister of Labour), Leonore Gewessler (Minister of the Environment), Prof. Andreas Novy (Editor)
Photo: BMK / Cajetan Perwein

On the one hand, the addressees are all those who make decisions that make a climate-friendly life easier or more difficult. Of course, this is not the same for everyone. On the one hand, definitely politics, especially those politicians who have special competences, obviously the Ministry of Climate Protection, but of course also the Ministry of Labor and Economic Affairs or the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, also the Ministry of Education. So the respective technical chapters address the respective ministries. But also at the state level, all those who have the skills, also at the community level, and of course companies also decide in many respects whether climate-friendly living is made possible or made more difficult. An obvious example is whether the respective charging infrastructures are available. Less discussed examples are whether the working time arrangements make it possible to live climate-friendly at all. Whether I can work in such a way that I can move around in a climate-friendly manner in my free time or on vacation, whether the employer allows or allows working from home, what rights this is associated with. These are then also addressees...

Protest, resistance and public debate are central

...and of course the public debate. Because it is actually quite clear from this report that protest, resistance, public debate and media attention will be key to achieving climate-friendly living. And the report tries to contribute to an informed public debate. With the goal that the debate is based on the current state of research, that it analyzes the initial situation relatively soberly and tries to negotiate design options and implement them in a coordinated manner.

Photo: Tom Poe

And is the report now being read in the ministries?

I can't judge that because I don't know what is being read in the ministries. We are in contact with various actors, and in some cases we have already heard that the summary has at least been read by speakers. I know the summary has been downloaded many times, we keep getting inquiries about various topics, but of course we would like more media attention. There was a Pressekonferenz with Mr. Kocher and Mrs. Gewessler. This was also received in the media. There are always newspaper articles about it, but of course there is still room for improvement from our point of view. In particular, reference can often be made to the report when certain arguments are presented that are untenable from a climate policy perspective.

The entire scientific community was involved

How was the process actually? 80 researchers were involved, but they have not started any new research. What did they do?

Yes, the report is not an original scientific project, but a summary of all relevant research in Austria. The project is funded by climate fund, who also initiated this APCC format 10 years ago. Then a process is initiated in which researchers agree to take on different roles. Then the funds for the coordination were applied for, and in the summer of 2020 the concrete process began.

As with the IPCC, this is a very systematic approach. First, there are three levels of authors: there are the main authors, one level below the lead authors, and one level below the contributing authors. The coordinating authors have the main responsibility for the respective chapter and start to write a first draft. This draft is then commented on by all other authors. The main authors must respond to the comments. The comments are incorporated. Then another draft is written and the entire scientific community is invited to comment again. The comments are answered and incorporated again, and in the next step the same procedure is repeated. And at the end, external actors are brought in and asked to say whether all comments have been adequately addressed. These are other researchers.

That means that not only the 80 authors were involved?

No, there were still 180 reviewers. But that's just the scientific process. All arguments used in the report must be literature-based. Researchers cannot write their own opinion, or what they think is true, but in fact they can only make arguments that can also be found in the literature, and they then have to evaluate these arguments based on the literature. You have to say: This argument is shared by the entire literature and there is a lot of literature on it, so that is taken for granted. Or they say: There's only one publication on this, only weak evidence, there are contradictory views, then they have to cite that as well. In this respect, it is an evaluating summary of the state of research with regard to the scientific quality of the respective statement.

Everything in the report is based on a source of literature, and in this respect the statements should always be read and understood with reference to the literature. We then also made sure that in the Summary for decision makers each sentence stands for itself and it is always clear to which chapter this sentence refers, and in the respective chapter it is possible to research which literature this sentence refers to.

Stakeholders from various areas of society were involved

So far I have only spoken about the scientific process. There was an accompanying, very comprehensive stakeholder process, and as part of this there was also an online workshop and two physical workshops, each with 50 to 100 stakeholders.

who were they Where did they come from?

From business and politics, from the climate justice movement, from administration, companies, civil society - from a wide variety of actors. So as broad as possible and always in relation to the respective subject areas.

These people, who weren’t scientists, had to work their way through it now?

There were different approaches. One was that you commented on the respective chapters online. They had to work through it. The other was that we organized workshops to get a better insight into what the stakeholders need, i.e. which information is helpful for them, and on the other hand whether they still have any indications as to which sources we should still consider. The results of the stakeholder process were presented in a separate stakeholder report published.

Results from the stakeholder workshop

A lot of voluntary unpaid work went into the report

So all in all a very complex process.

This is not something that you just write down briefly. This summary for decision-makers: we worked on it for five months... A total of a good 1000 to 1500 comments were incorporated, and 30 authors really read it several times and voted on every detail. And this process doesn't happen in a vacuum, but it actually happened essentially unpaid, it has to be said. The payment for this process was for the coordination, so I was funded. The authors have received a small acknowledgment that never, ever reflects their efforts. The reviewers did not receive any funding, neither did the stakeholders.

A scientific basis for the protest

How can the climate justice movement use this report?

I think the report can be used in many different ways. In any case, it should be brought very strongly into the public debate, and politicians should also be made aware of what is possible and what is necessary. There are a lot of design options. Another important point here is that the report very explicitly points out that if there is no greater commitment from all actors, the climate targets will simply be missed. This is the current state of research, there is consensus in the report, and this message has to get out to the public. The climate justice movement will find many arguments for how climate-friendly living can be viewed in the context of income and wealth inequality. Also the importance of the global dimension. There are many arguments that can sharpen the contributions of the climate justice movement and put them on a better scientific basis.

Photo: Tom Poe

There is also a message in the report that reads: "Through criticism and protest, civil society has temporarily brought climate policy to the center of public debates worldwide from 2019 onwards", so it is relatively clear that this is essential. “The coordinated action of social movements such as e.g. B. Fridays for Future, which resulted in climate change being discussed as a social problem. This development has opened up new room for maneuver in terms of climate policy. However, environmental movements can only develop their potential if they are supported by influential political actors inside and outside of government sit in the respective decision-making positions, which can then actually implement changes.

Now the movement is also out to change these decision-making structures, the balance of power. For example, if you say: well, the climate council of the citizens is all well and good, but it also needs skills, it also needs decision-making powers. Something like that would actually be a very big change in our democratic structures.

Yes, the report says little or nothing about the climate council because it took place at the same time, so there is no literature that could be taken up. In and of itself I would agree with you there, but not based on literature, but from my background.

Dear Ernest, thank you very much for the interview!

The report will be published as an open access book by Springer Spektrum in early 2023. Until then, the respective chapters are on the CCCA home page available.

This post was created by the Option Community. Join in and post your message!

ON THE CONTRIBUTION TO OPTION AUSTRIA


Leave a Comment