—

set up a European Green and Social Deal as part of an overarching ‘EU 2050 Sustainable Development Strategy’ that is truly decoupled from the overuse of natural resources, whose central aim would be to increase the wellbeing of citizens. The EESC is pleased that the new Commission intends to launch a European Green Deal; however, the EESC insists that this should include the social dimensions;

—

make a systematic assessment of the potential negative/positive side-effects of the transition on Europe’s population (especially poor and vulnerable groups) and structurally weak regions and better understand the intergenerational drivers of sustainability and inequality;

—

set up the appropriate governance structures and tools to implement the SDGs and the European Green and Social Deal, e.g. using the European Semester, better regulation and the MFF, including the cohesion and social funds to drive transformation;

—

develop a wider understanding of the ‘just transition’ (beyond coal) and fully implement the European Pillar of Social Rights in support of it, while driving reforms of redistributive systems (tailored taxation, social protection, and sustainable and social investments) as well as work-life balance and gender equality;

—

ensure equal access as well as equal opportunities regarding adequate education and training for all;

—

overcome barriers to active participation by citizens who do not have the necessary financial and social capital, the necessary knowledge and information, and access to opportunities;

—

introduce policies that both benefit citizens and protect the environment, e.g. air pollution plans prioritising vulnerable groups, green social housing policies, etc.;

—

promote a social and collaborative economy within the sustainability transition (e.g. skills, circular economy, energy transition, foster cooperatives);

—

provide SMEs with support to succeed in the transition and achieve sustainable competitiveness, through better access to skills, finance, innovation and technology;

—

enhance quality job creation;

—

design a strategy to ensure that not only cities but also rural communities become more inclusive, resilient and sustainable;

—

strengthen climate protection and adaptation in Europe to fight desertification and address water scarcity and depopulation;

—

give young people and future generations a meaningful voice and make them count in sustainability decision-making;

—

promote a sustainable trade policy, which internalises the positive and negative social and environmental externalities of trade.

—

only large companies are able to invest and SMEs are not,

—

start-ups have no access to the future markets of a sustainable economy,

—

only the public sector in prosperous rather than in structurally weak regions has the budget to make infrastructure fit for sustainability,

—

but most importantly, people with lower incomes and few financial resources, lower education and less knowledge, with lower bankability, lower social capital and less confidence have or perceive no real opportunities to invest or change their consumption patterns to sustainability. In such a scenario, the only ones who benefit from the sustainability transition are those who are already doing well. The social inequalities and injustices would then increase, as would regional disparities.

—

A higher CO2 price increases the cost of electricity, unless it is produced 100 % CO2-free. This makes the self-supply of electricity from renewable sources, such as solar energy (boosted in the future using electrical storage), more attractive. Prosuming makes sense in terms of environmental and economic sustainability. However, those who live in their own homes or those running bigger businesses and owning sufficiently large (roof) surfaces have much better chances to benefit from prosuming. For tenants or small craft businesses, on the other hand, becoming a prosumer is either harder or even objectively impossible. Therefore, electricity becomes more and more expensive for them, while self-suppliers can save money and pay off their investment while even receiving taxpayers’ money in certain circumstances. This increases social inequality and the competitive disadvantages of small businesses. Very similar problems are also seen in the heating sector.

—

A higher CO2 price also makes fossil fuels expensive. In other words, the cost of purchasing an electric car is recouped more quickly. This, however, requires financial liquidity or at least creditworthiness. Individuals, or even small businesses, that do not have this are not in the position to buy an electric car and must, therefore, shoulder the higher price for petrol. Another option, at least in large cities, is public transport or cycling. But this is not a realistic alternative in many rural areas. The result is that we do not simply encounter the same problems as with electricity or heating; regional cohesion is also placed under further strain.

—

Finally, the best way to effectively encourage the development of the circular economy is probably to make raw material consumption more expensive, e.g. steering through VAT. However, the avoidance or recycling of raw materials by industry or commerce also often requires investment up front in equipment and technology, which again would benefit large companies to the detriment of SMEs.

—

a guaranteed adequate income for those in need;

—

guaranteed access to microfinance support or public loans for people with low credit ratings from the point of view of private banks;

—

support for (especially community) self-supply, for example in the fields of energy, housing and agriculture, which could be embodied in different forms of structures within the social economy, in particular cooperatives);

—

reducing administrative barriers to these actors;

—

out-reach legal and technical counselling;

—

strengthening public investment in infrastructure and social investment.