For some years now, the tension between environmental protection and social justice has become increasingly important in shaping environmental policy. Many people fear that ambitious environmental and climate policy measures will lead to major financial burdens. The regular representative surveys conducted by the Federal Ministry for the Environment and the ⁠UBA⁠ on “environmental awareness in Germany“ show that such fears exist in all socio-cultural milieus in Germany.

An ambitious environmental and climate policy offers great opportunities to reduce existing social inequality if it reduces environmental pollution and the effects of climate change. Numerous studies show that poorer people often live in a more polluted environment and are also more frequently affected by climate change impacts, such as ⁠heat stress⁠. This results in considerable health-related follow-up costs that have to be borne by society as a whole.

On the one hand, an ambitious environmental policy has a clear economic benefit. On the other hand, this also means that poorer population groups can benefit to an above-average extent from an ambitious environmental policy.

Addressing negative distribution effects

Increasingly, environmental protection instruments are required that have an effect that is focussed on those responsible. These measures impose burdens on private households unless they are able to respond with adaptation behaviour and adaptation investments. This may be the case because they lack the financial resources for investment, they do not have the appropriate decision-making powers or they lack the necessary knowledge.

If environmental policy increases the costs of key needs such as housing, food or mobility, it can also exacerbate social inequality and jeopardise its political legitimacy. Citizens will only support environmental and climate policy if they perceive the measures as useful and fair and can participate in shaping them.

This results in a clear mandate for the socially responsible design of environmental policy. From an environmental policy perspective, the most effective long-term approach is to strengthen the scope for action of private households in favour of sustainable consumption and lifestyles.

This should take into account the respective restrictions on their behaviour. For example, a low income can massively restrict the scope for investing in efficient appliances, the energy-efficient refurbishment of living space or the replacement of heating systems. A lack of decision-making powers regarding refurbishment measures for tenants also restricts households' scope for adaptation.

Expanding the room for manoeuvre for sustainable lifestyles to enable change

A lack of infrastructure can also make it difficult to switch to less environmentally harmful forms of satisfying needs – for example, the lack of attractive public transport services in rural areas. A lack of or contradictory information can also limit the ability to act. This is exemplified by the challenge of eating a diet that is not only healthy but also ecologically sustainable.

Shaping environmental policy in a socially responsible way therefore means enabling consumers to make changes. For example, environmentally harmful subsidies should be phased out and external environmental costs internalised through environmental taxes so that those affected have sufficient time to adapt. In addition, target group-specific support programmes and needs-based advice are necessary. These programmes can specifically address barriers to adaptation, identify options for action and thus avoid unreasonable burdens for households with low and medium incomes.

There is currently still a great need for research into which specific support measures can effectively address these challenges. These must be specific enough to address the central “lock-in” effects, i.e. the obstacles that structurally keep households “trapped” in unsustainable consumption and lifestyles.

These requirements for the design of a socially responsible environmental policy require a high degree of coordination and cooperation between social actors. The dialogue between ecological and social actors can facilitate a change of perspective here in order to recognise areas of tension at an early stage and look for joint solutions. This could also increase social acceptance and the effectiveness of environmental policy.