The empowering turnaround of the Club of Rome’s latest report “Earth for All” focuses on
gender equality. It is a central challenge for socially just, but above all climate-friendly and
sustainable development. But it is closely linked to the issue of education and training.

We will talk about this at the next 🔗Earth4All project event on 17.5.24.

by Hannes Swoboda (11.04.2024)

Gender, marginalized groups and education

According to the authors of the report: “In the turbulent transition phase, public investment in education for all is a top priority. But not just any education. The entire education system needs to be rethought: We need to……emphasize the importance of lifelong learning and the close link between people and ecosystems.” Unfortunately, there is a lot of discussion about education in Austria in particular, but little about education as a prerequisite for the transformation that is necessary, especially in terms of climate policy.

But back to gender equality. As far as the situation of women is concerned, it’s not just about the difference in pay for equal work. “…women not only earn less than men, they are also disproportionately often employed in the low-wage sector and face “glass ceilings” that block their access to top jobs…” Moreover, they are often faced with a double or triple burden. This is not only the case in many poorer countries, where women often do the heavy work in agriculture, but also in European societies.

In any case, education and training are closely linked to the issue of women’s – economic and social – emancipation. The more women are integrated into the education process, the more likely they are to be able to assert themselves in society against the prejudices and discrimination that still prevail.

However, the “Earth for All” report also underlines the need to empower various marginalized groups, such as immigrants and refugees, but also the long-term unemployed, to actively participate in the transformation process. Education and training also play a central role in this regard.

In any case, the approach of “feminist economics” is the fundamentally new approach that claims to also represent the other “underprivileged” groups and their interests. In her article “Caring for Future: Feminist Economics and the Climate Crisis”, Austrian socio-economist Corinna Dengler argues that “a feminist approach to the climate crisis cannot be limited to analyzing unequal gender relations. Rather, it is about looking at the interplay of destructive social relations to nature, patriarchy, racism/coloniality, class relations….. and daring to undertake an intersectional feminist analysis.”

Of course, feminist economics is primarily concerned with the fact “that every production process in the ‘monetary economy’ is based on unpaid care work and free access to nature.” It is to be hoped that the desired reduction in working hours, or rather the shortening of working hours, will lead to climate-friendly employment and not put even more pressure on the climate. It should therefore be designed in such a way that it creates more time for unpaid care work – which tends to occur on a daily basis – and for various community activities. In this way, reducing working hours can also support the social transformation process.

Climate policy as part of social change

The crucial question is therefore generally which socio-political measures and developments will lead us to a global, European and Austrian turnaround. How and by what means are the various social groups willing or able to initiate or support the Great Transformation? Incidentally, it is not the only transformation that is accompanying us or presenting us with new challenges. 

The German sociologist Uwe Schimank speaks of three integration problems: Social integration, system integration and ecological integration. And with regard to ecological integration, he says: “However, it is very difficult to determine in detail what degree of disintegration, i.e. unsustainability, is still socially tolerable, at what cost and for how long – and which tipping points will be irreversibly exceeded.”

Approaching these tipping points and the associated question of irreversibility is a concern for many authors as well as climate activists. Jens Beckert, Director of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, says: “We have to prepare for a temperature increase from 2.5 to 3 degrees by the end of this century”. In this context, he speaks of “thoughtful realism”. For him, however, this does not mean resignation, but a call to action: “We must prepare for global warming, but at the same time make use of the options that remain to us: Tripling investment in green growth and not determining climate measures from above, but allowing them to emerge much more with the involvement of the population.”

In his book “Sold Future”, Jens Beckert distinguishes three factors that influence the opportunities and difficulties of the transformation process. “The focus here is on the growth and profit logic of the capitalist economic system with its market logic, the political legitimacy problems of democratic political systems and questions of cultural identity and status competition between citizens and consumers.”

Capitalism in Europe

What Beckert – and many others – overlook, however, is that within the framework of the
European Union, the Green Deal and subsequent laws and measures have made a
correction – albeit a limited one – to the market-based capitalist system. Many rules
contradict the pure pursuit of profit or redefine profit targets. Even if some measures were
weakened by conservative forces before the European Parliament elections, a radical
reversal of such rule-based policies is not to be expected. And it is to be hoped that the
political shift away from an active climate policy associated with the foreseeable shift to the
right will not be too strong.


As far as Austria is concerned, with its system of social partnership, it still has stronger
options for economic governance, even though the social partnership has lost influence. The
question is whether a revival of the social partnership could lead to a stronger and socially
coordinated climate policy in Austria.

Overall, however, European, rules-based policy faces major global challenges when other
powers, such as the USA and China, go down the path of massive subsidies. European
countries are then forced to follow suit. Nevertheless, classic capitalism based purely on
profit no longer exists or is corrected by legal rules and/or subsidies. So much for the
relationship between the state and the economy.


As far as the relationship between the state and citizens and consumers is concerned,
individualization has become increasingly prevalent. This can be seen as a liberation from
many social constraints. And it undoubtedly is. On the other hand, government regulations
that contradict customary consumer behavior are often met with resistance. Many people are
hostile to government intervention. We saw this at various demonstrations during the
coronavirus crisis and we see it again and again in the resistance to wind turbines, etc. Many
people are also resisting “dietary regulations”. And yet we need to consider how we can
involve citizens/consumers more in climate policy decisions – without falling into the illusion
that citizens would already make the right decisions if only politicians would let them.

Expanding of Democracy as Empowerment

In Austria, citizen participation has recently taken place with the creation and involvement of
a climate council, but also by voting on the erection of wind turbines in some Lower Austrian
municipalities. Are these the instruments that need to be expanded? Should advisory bodies
be created to complement the existing elected institutions? Should a kind of future chamber
be created that focuses on young people and their interests in climate policy? Or should the
citizens directly affected vote on the individual projects – from wind turbines and large-scale
solar plants to the mining of metals and rare earths that we need for comprehensive
electrification?

We therefore need to seriously discuss the expansion of democracy. In doing so, however,
we will have to place particular emphasis on strengthening the efficiency and responsibility
of existing institutions – even if or by creating new ones that critically accompany them. A
successful social transformation must result from an interplay between broad-based and
generally elected institutions and civil society institutions and groups. There is no way
around discussions about the goals and means of transformation. Our societies are suffering
from a lack of serious debate about long-term goals.

The disregard for such long-term goals has also been brought before the highest courts by some citizens’ initiatives. Following a ruling by the German Federal Constitutional Court, the decision by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has now caused a stir. It has derived a human right to climate protection from the European Convention on Human Rights. The “Swiss Association of Climate Seniors” has been proved right in its argument that Switzerland has failed to take necessary climate action. Even if neither Switzerland nor the European Union can stop global warming on their own, these countries are obliged to take appropriate measures. Going to court – provided that the formal rules are adhered to – is certainly an empowerment of citizens with regard to climate protection.

The media also play a role in social disputes, which also fluctuate between announcing imminent disasters and denying the necessary measures. It will be crucial to win them over for critical support of the necessary transformation process. Of course, the various social roles – especially among younger people – play a decisive role today. We all need to think about how we can support and promote the social transformation process through and with these media.

More on this at our event on 17.5.2024:
https://www.clubofrome.at/veranstaltungen/event-17mai2024-kehrtwende3-empowerment/