Blog

In this blog post, Halliki Kreinin from the University of Münster/RIFS Potsdam reflects on the growth-dependence of welfare states and why it is a critical hurdle for social welfare and sustainability. To pave the way towards resilient growth-independent welfare states, our project advocates for policies that break the link between growth and well-being through redistributing wealth, combating inequality, and providing welfare outside of paid…

More than 60% of home energy consumption is used for heating in an average European household, thus paying attention to our heating methods and practices not only help us in pursuing 1.5° or green lifestyles, but it is also important because small changes – without major investments – can lead to big impact.[1] You may know that lowering the indoor temperature by 1-2°C can result in 6-10% energy use (and thus carbon footprint) reduction, and if…

In this month's EU 1.5° Lifestyles blog post, we're thrilled to have Katia Dayan Vladimirova, Senior Researcher at the University of Geneva, as our guide to the impacts of social media on our choices, behaviors, and attitudes, particularly concerning (un)sustainable ways of consuming fashion. Katia highlights the overconsumption fostered by these platforms as well as the potential, if any, that they hold as catalysts for meaningful conversations…

Reducing the carbon footprint of our individual and household food consumption is essential to minimise food waste in our homes. Of course, this is not only important in terms of reducing our carbon footprint, but also in terms of reducing the waste of resources used to consume other discarded, unused food and drink and the associated negative environmental and social impacts. Moreover, we can do all this basically without spending extra money…

A previous blog post has detailed the carbon footprints for 49 countries and regions in 2015, 2030, and 2050 and how the EU 1.5° Lifestyles modelling team developed these footprint scenarios. In this post, we take a closer look at the household carbon footprints of the five case study countries of the EU 1.5° Lifestyles project.[1] The results in this post are based on our sustainable technological development scenario without lifestyle changes…

The EU 1.5° Lifestyles project has explored the significant behaviour changes needed for European citizens to truly adopt 1.5° lifestyles and we have interviewed “pioneers” who have adopted low-carbon lifestyles to tell us about what has helped them and what has been challenging.

In an effort to assess the potential effects of lifestyle changes on economic and welfare systems, a Policy Delphi process was carried out in several European countries. This innovative approach gathered expert opinions through a series of workshops, aiming to evaluate the feasibility and desirability of welfare system policies and business models that align with 1.5-degree lifestyles. In this blog post, we will delve into the methodology, key…

There is more and more talk about carbon budgets in climate policy, but when it comes to business and lifestyles, this is not yet the case. Decisions as individuals and businesses are still made mostly based on resources such as money and time. When we measure environmental impacts, such as carbon footprints, we focus on what has already happened and what we might be able to learn from it. Why not flip the question and start talking from a carbon…

Living a sustainable life is not a walk in the park. It is a complex process for governments, organisations and individuals alike and has many ups and downs. It is sometimes hard to know exactly which of our choices are truly sustainable. Also, we often face difficulties when trying to adopt a sustainable way of life. Some people experience such changes more actively with such changes and we can learn a lot from them:  what motivates their…

During our Citizen Thinking Labs (CTLs) we exposed more than 100 citizens from 5 European countries to a set of low-carbon lifestyle options to evaluate A) whether they were already implementing them, would be willing to implement them in the near future, or would reject the options, and, B) what the reasons for their choices were.