• Energy Research
• 2021-2025close
• 16. Peace & justice close
• German close

Klima und Wohnen – Eine Geschichte gegenseitiger Einflussnahme Unser Planet verändert sich. Der anthropogene Klimawandel verursacht weltweit Dürren und Waldbrände, lässt die Meeresspiegel steigen und führt zu humanitären Katastrophen. Viele Länder streben die Umkehr respektive eine Abminderung der Folgen des Klimawandels an und haben zu diesem Zweck Klimabündnisse und Klima[1]abkommen ins Leben gerufen. Die Vereinten Nationen, die Europäische Union und Österreich haben dazu verschiedene Ziele formuliert und Maßnahmenkataloge entwickelt, die dem Trend der weltweiten Klimaerwärmung entgegen[1]wirken (Klimaschutzziele) und nachhaltige und zukunftsfähige Entwicklungen hervorbringen sollen (Nachhaltige Entwicklungsziele). Das Bauwesen mit dem Sektor Gebäude als zweitgrößtem Treibhausgas-Emittenten in Österreich ist neben dem Sektor Verkehr die größte Quelle von CO2-Emissionen außerhalb des EU-Emissionshandels. Private Haushalte sind mit der Bereitstellung von Raumwärme und Warmwasser für die meisten Treibhausgas-Emissionen verantwortlich. Nationale Jahresberichte zeigen, dass die gemeinsam formulierten und ratifizierten Klimaschutzziele nur unzureichend erfüllt werden. Sollte die 1,5°-Celsius-Marke der maximalen globalen Erwärmung überschritten werden, ist der weltweite Klimawandel nicht mehr umkehrbar. Der demografische Wandel und das Wachstum der Städte verlangen nach neuem Wohnraum. Nachverdichtung, Neubau und Sanierungen bieten mit dem Wissen ob der klimatischen Veränderungen und dem maßgeblichen Einfluss auf CO2-Emissionen privater Haushalte eine ideale Angriffsfläche für Veränderung im Bauwesen. Energieeffizientes Bauen unter Einbeziehung integrierter erneuerbarer Energieerschließung, Ressourcenschonung, der Einsatz von nach[1]wachsenden Rohstoffen sowie eine holistische Lebenszyklusanalyse sind hierbei wesentlich.Schnittstelle – Die Smart City Wien Rahmenstrategie 2019 – 2050.Die Rahmenstrategie für die „Smart City Wien 2050“ basiert auf den nachhaltigen Entwicklungszielen (den 17 SDGs) der UN Agenda 2030 und formuliert eine Mission sowie verschiedene Ziele, deren Einhaltung die Zukunftsfähigkeit und die Lebensqualität der Stadt für alle Menschen in Wien garantieren soll. Die Smart City Wien bekennt sich zum 1,5°-Celsius-Ziel. Gemeinsam mit Monitoring und Governance bilden die zwölf Zielbereiche das Rückgrat der Rahmenstrategie. Die einzelnen Unterziele geben Planenden Argumente für nachhaltige Lösungen in die Hand. Sechs der zwölf Zielbereiche wurden für diese Arbeit als Schnittstelle zwischen Klimaschutzzielen, nachhaltigen Entwicklungszielen und dem Wohnen ausgewählt: Partizipation, Gebäude, Energieversorgung, soziale Inklusion, Umwelt sowie Mobilität und Verkehr.Baugruppen – Partizipation als Ressource.Die Stadt Wien fördert Partizipationsprozesse und Baugruppen. In der Stadtentwicklung sind Baugruppenprojekte in Quartiersentwicklungen oder bei Bauträgerwettbewerben für kleinere Grundstücke seit einigen Jahren fest verankert. Baugruppenprojekte bergen Lebendigkeit und Strahlkraft, sie evozieren positive Entwicklungen im Stadtquartier und werden gezielt zur Stadtteil[1]entwicklung eingesetzt. Mit dem Einsatz von Ressourcen wie Zeit, Geld und Raum für die Beteiligung im Partizipations[1]prozess können im Bau oder der Sanierung sowie später in der Nutzungsphase eines Gebäudes Baumaterialien, Energiebedarf und CO2-Emis[1]sionen, aber auch Geld und Bodenfläche, ein[1]gespart werden. Aber auch außerhalb des Sektors Gebäude wird die Verringerung der Treibhaus[1]gas-Emissionen dank der sozialen Vernetzung vorangetrieben. Eigene Sharing-Plattformen für Mobilität und Gebrauchsgegenstände können beispielsweise Ergebnisse partizipativer Wohn[1]formen sein. Innerhalb der richtigen Rahmen[1]bedingungen fördern Baugruppenprojekte soziale Inklusion und tragen zur Schaffung von leistbarem Wohnraum bei.Motivation.Aus einem persönlichen Interesse für nachhaltige Entwicklungen habe ich ein Praktikum in einem Büro absolviert, welches Baugruppenprojekte, auch in Holzbauweise, realisiert. In meinem Praktikum bei einszueins architektur (September 2019 – April 2020) habe ich vier Monate am „Bauträger-wettbewerb für Baugruppen 2019“ gezeichnet. In einem gemeinsamen Projektteam bestehend aus Baugruppe, Architekturbüro, sozialer Prozessbegleitung und Bauträger wurde das Bau- und Projektkonzept namens HABITAT HIMMELTEICH für rund 30 Wohneinheiten in Essling in Wien entwickelt. Durch den persönlichen Bezug zu diesem Projekt habe ich beschlossen, die Wettbewerbsbroschüre HABITAT HIMMELTEICH als Basis für meine Diplomarbeit zu verwenden. Der partizipative Prozess der Gruppe innerhalb der 1. Stufe des Wettbewerbs wird als Fallbeispiel exemplarisch dargestellt. Diese Arbeit untersucht mithilfe der Wiener Rahmenstrategie als Schnittstelle positive Beiträge von Baugruppen zur Erfüllung der Klimaziele.Forschungsfragen und ZielDie vorliegende Diplomarbeit untersucht den Beitrag von Baugruppen zur Smart City Wien 2050 – und somit zur Erfüllung der Pariser Klimaschutzziele und der Nachhaltigen Entwicklungsziele. Das Ziel dieser Arbeit ist die Beleuchtung der positiven Beiträge von Baugruppen zur Erfüllung der ZieleMethodik und AufbauDie Methoden der Kapitel 2-4 und 6 sind Literaturrecherche und Beobachtung. Die Methoden des Kapitel 5 – Fallbeispiel sind die Mitarbeit am Projekt und Beobachtung. Climate and Housing - A History of Mutual Influence.Our planet is changing. Anthropogenic climate change causes droughts and forest fires worldwide, raises sea levels and leads to humanitarian disasters. Many countries are striving to reverse or mitigate the consequences of climate change and have set up climate alliances and agreements for this purpose. The United Nations, the European Union and Austria have formulated various goals and developed catalogs of measures to counteract the trend of global warming (climate protection goals) and to bring about sustainable and future-oriented developments (sustainable development goals). The construction industry, with the building sector as the second largest greenhouse gas emitter in Austria, is the largest source of CO2 emissions outside of the EU emissions trading, alongside the transport sector. Private households are responsible for most of the greenhouse gas emissions by providing space heating and hot water. National annual reports show that the jointly formulated and ratified climate protection goals are only inadequately met. If the maximum global warming of 1.5 ° Celsius is exceeded, global climate change is no longer reversible. Demographic change and the growth of cities require new living space. Densification, new construction and renovations offer an ideal target for changes in the construction industry with the knowledge of climatic changes and the significant influence on CO2 emissions in private households. Energy-efficient construction with the inclusion of integrated renewable energy development, resource conservation, the use of renewable raw materials and a holistic life cycle analysis are essential here. Interface - The Smart City Wien Framework Strategy 2019-2050.The framework strategy for “Smart City Wien 2050” is based on the sustainable development goals (the 17 SDGs) of the UN Agenda 2030 and formulates a mission and various goals, compliance with which should guarantee the future viability and quality of life of the city for all people in Vienna. Smart City Wien is committed to the 1.5 ° Celsius target. Together with monitoring and governance, the twelve target areas form the backbone of the framework strategy. The individual sub-goals provide planners with arguments for sustainable solutions. Six of the twelve target areas were selected for this work as an interface between climate protection goals, sustainable development goals and living: participation, buildings, energy supply, social inclusion, the environment, and mobility and transport. Assemblies - participation as a resource.The City of Vienna promotes participation processes and assemblies. In urban development, assembly projects have been firmly anchored in district developments or in property developer competitions for smaller properties for several years. Building group projects bring vitality and charisma, they evoke positive developments in the urban quarter and are used specifically for urban development. By using resources such as time, money and space for participation in the participation process, savings can be made on building materials, energy requirements and CO2 emissions, as well as money and floor space, during construction or renovation and later in the use phase of a building. But the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is also being promoted outside the building sector thanks to social networking. Own sharing platforms for mobility and everyday objects can, for example, be the result of participatory forms of living. Within the right framework, assembly projects promote social inclusion and help create affordable housing. Motivation.Out of a personal interest in sustainable developments, I completed an internship in an office that implements assembly projects, including wood construction. In my internship at einszueins architektur (September 2019 - April 2020) I drew four months in the "Developer competition for assemblies 2019". The construction and project concept called HABITAT HIMMELTEICH for around 30 residential units in Essling in Vienna was developed in a joint project team consisting of an assembly group, architecture office, social process support and property developer. Due to the personal connection to this project, I decided to use the competition brochure HABITAT HIMMELTEICH as the basis for my diploma thesis. The participatory process of the group within the 1st stage of the competition is presented as an example. Using the Vienna framework strategy as an interface, this work examines positive contributions made by assemblies to meet the climate targets. Research questions and goalThis diploma thesis examines the contribution of assemblies to Smart City Vienna 2050 - and thus to the fulfillment of the Paris climate protection goals and the sustainable development goals. The aim of this work is to illuminate the positive contributions of assemblies to the achievement of the goals. Methodology and structureThe methods of Chapters 2-4 and 6 are literature research and observation. The methods of Chapter 5 - Case Study are collaboration on the project and observation.

Heutige Produktions- und Konsummuster folgen weitgehend einer linearen Logik: abbauen, herstellen, konsumieren, entsorgen. Nur neun Prozent der Weltwirtschaft sind laut Circular Gap Report 2020 kreislaufgef��hrt. Doch dieses Wirtschaftsprinzip tr��gt zu einer massiven ��berschreitung der ���Planetaren Grenzen��� und damit zu einer Destabilisierung der ��kosysteme und Lebensgrundlage der Menschen bei, wie etwa des Klimasystems und der Artenvielfalt. Demzufolge wird derzeit viel ��ber einen Paradigmenwechsel in der Logik industrieller Wertsch��pfung diskutiert ��� weg von einem ressourcenintensiven hin zu einem ressourcenproduktiven, weitgehend kreislaufgef��hrten Modell. F��r das Industrie- und Exportland Deutschland ergeben sich weitreichende Chancen, schlie��lich bedeutet dieser Wechsel nicht weniger als eine Neuinterpretation des Modells ���Made in Germany���. Die Europ��ische Union und zahlreiche Mitgliedsl��nder haben bereits strategische Pl��ne f��r einen ��bergang zu einer ressourcenschonenden Wirtschaftsweise nach den Prinzipien der Circular Economy entwickelt. Auch au��erhalb von Europa folgen L��nder dieser Leitidee, beispielsweise China, Japan oder Kanada. F��r Deutschland fehlt solch ein Plan derzeit. Die Circular Economy Initiative Deutschland (CEID) hat zum Ziel, als Multi-Stakeholder-Prozess mit mehr als f��nfzig Institutionen aus Wirtschaft, Wissenschaft und Zivilgesellschaft die Grundlage f��r einen solchen Plan zu legen. In interdisziplin��ren und branchen��bergreifenden Arbeitsgruppen er��rtern rund 130 Expertinnen und Experten, wie zirkul��re Wirtschaftssysteme erm��glicht und umgesetzt werden k��nnen. Dazu untersuchen sie m��gliche Anwendungsfelder und diskutieren, welche Rahmenbedingungen zu einer erfolgreichen Umsetzung f��hren k��nnten. Die Circular Economy Initiative Deutschland definiert Ziele f��r diesen Ver��nderungsprozess und fokussiert folgende Themen: - Zirkul��re Gesch��ftsmodelle und digitale Technologien als Innovationstreiber - Neue Wertsch��pfungsnetzwerke f��r Batterien und Verpackung - Rahmenbedingungen f��r eine zirkul��re Transformation und Bemessung der volkswirtschaftlichen Circular-Economy-Potenziale Zwischen Oktober 2019 und Dezember 2020 hat die Arbeitsgruppe Verpackung der Circular Economy Initiative Deutschland ein gemeinsames Zielbild 2030 und Handlungsempfehlungen hin zu einer Kreislaufwirtschaft (CE) f��r Verpackungen entwickelt. Mit einer wertsch��pfungsketten��bergreifenden Betrachtung hat die Arbeitsgruppe Anreiz und Nutzen f��r die Kreislauff��hrung von Verpackungsmaterialien zwischen relevanten Akteuren beleuchtet und dadurch Handlungsoptionen entlang der gesamten Wertsch��pfungskette identifiziert. Damit unterst��tzen die Mitglieder die Initiierung, Umsetzung und langfristige Verankerung der Circular Economy in Deutschland und dar��ber hinaus. Mit 20 Mitgliedsorganisationen der Arbeitsgruppe ���Verpackung��� umfassen die Mitglieder Vertreterinnen und Vertreter aus f��hrenden deutschen Unternehmen, akademischen Institutionen und zivilgesellschaftlichen Vereinigungen ��ber die gesamte Wertsch��pfungskette hinweg. Damit konnte die Arbeitsgruppe ihr Ziel erreichen, eine wissenschaftlich fundierte und m��glichst ganzheitliche Betrachtung des Themas zu gew��hrleisten. Most current patterns of production and consumption follow a linear ���extract, produce, consume, dispose��� model. According to the Circular Gap Report 2020, the global economy is just 9% circular. This economic model is contributing to a massive transgression of ���planetary boundaries��� and the destabilisation of ecosystems and factors essential to human life such as the climate system and biodiversity. As a result, there is currently much discussion of a paradigm shift in the industrial value creation model, away from a resource-intensive system and towards a resource-productive, predominantly circular model. This shift offers significant opportunities for an industrialized, exporting nation like Germany ��� ultimately, it entails nothing less than a recasting of the ���Made in Germany��� model. The European Union and several of its member states have already developed strategic plans for the transition to a resource-efficient economic system based on circular economy principles. Non-European countries such as China, Japan and Canada are also following the same fundamental approach. However, Germany has yet to formulate a plan of its own. The Circular Economy Initiative Deutschland (CEID) is a multi-stakeholder initiative involving over fifty institutions from science, industry and civil society that aims to lay the foundations of a plan for Germany. In its interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral working groups, some 130 experts consider how to enable and implement circular economic models, exploring potential fields of application and discussing the conditions that could facilitate successful implementation. The Circular Economy Initiative Deutschland is developing targets for the transition, with a focus on the following themes: - Circular business models and digital technologies as drivers for innovation - New value networks for batteries and packaging - Framework conditions for a circular transformation and assessment of circularity���s economic potential Between October 2019 und December 2020, the Working Group ���Packaging��� of the Circular Economy Initiative Deutschland developed a joint target picture 2030 and recommendations for action for the establishment of a Circular Economy for packaging. With a cross-value chain approach, the Working Group highlighted incentives and benefits for the recycling of packaging materials across relevant stakeholders and thereby identified options for action along the entire value chain. With the report, the members support the initiation, implementation and long-term anchoring of the Circular Economy in Germany and beyond. The 20 members of the Working Group ���Packaging��� are experts from leading academic institutions, German businesses and civil society across the entire packaging value chain. This composition allowed the group to achieve its goal of addressing the topic as holistically as possible.

Der vorliegende Beitrag gibt einen detailreichen historischen Einblick in die Geschichte und Stellung der Erwachsenenbildung in der Weltgesellschaft – allen voran im Rahmen der Vereinten Nationen und ihrer Sonderorganisationen. Der Autor ist selbst seit vielen Jahrzehnten an der Entwicklung von bedeutsamen internationalen Papieren und Empfehlungen sowie an der Planung und Durchführung von Konferenzen – z.B. der CONFINTEA, der von der UNESCO organisierten Weltkonferenz für Erwachsenenbildung – beteiligt. Aus dieser Perspektive verwebt sich der Rückblick auf fast ein halbes Jahrhundert bewegte (Berufs-)Biografie mit der Entwicklung eines Projekts einer Erwachsenenbildung für die Weltgemeinschaft, die an der Zielvorstellung von Frieden und Menschenrechten ausgerichtet ist. Das alles bestimmende Motiv: der Erwachsenenbildung und dem Lebenslangen Lernen einen angemessenen Platz in den internationalen Erklärungen der Weltgemeinschaft sichern. Der Beitrag schildert Erreichtes und Rückschläge, und am Ende steht: ein unbeirrt positiver Blick in die Zukunft, denn „die nächste CONFINTEA ist just around the corner“. (DIPF/Orig.) This article provides a detailed historical look at the development and position of adult education in global society – above all as part of the United Nations and its agencies. For many decades, the author has participated in the development of important international papers and recommendations as well as the planning and carrying out of conferences – for example CONFINTEA, the International Conferences on Adult Education organized by UNESCO. From this perspective, the review of nearly half a century of eventful (professional) biography is interwoven with the development of a project on adult education for the global community which is oriented towards the goal of peace and human rights. The motif that defines everything: Guaranteeing that there is a suitable place for adult education and lifelong learning in the international declarations of the world community. The article describes achievements and setbacks, and at the end concludes with an unwaveringly positive look into the future, for „the next CONFINTEA is just around the corner“. (DIPF/Orig.)

The document includes the main results of the Benefits project, funded by the German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Protection under grant numbers 03EI5203A-C (here: version with small corrections). The joint project aimed at 1) Identifying forms, scopes, motives and obstacles of financial participation by citizens and municipalities, 2) Analyzing determinants of geographical and socio-economic distribution/inclusiveness of the participation of citizens and municipalities and its effectiveness for the transformation process as well as the underlying social mechanisms, 3) Developing strategies in a transdisciplinary design to win citizens and municipalities for financial participation in the energy transition ("mobilization strategies"), which will be transferred into practice together with associations and energy and climate protection agencies. This should improve the data basis for analyses differentiated by forms of financial participation. The data will be made available for subsequent research work. Based on the scientific analyses in step (2), practicable concepts were developed together with practitioners. Consortium partner Fördergesellschaft Erneuerbare Energien finished its part earlier and has submitted a separate final report on its work.

Plant protection products are a significant component of conventional arable farming in Germany. They have helped increase land productivity and reduce yield losses, thereby providing a significant contribution to food security. However, plant protection products have negative impacts on biodi-versity. Moreover, their degradation products can be found in ground and surface waters, and they are associated with negative effects on human health. Against this background, the aim of policy is to reduce the use of plant protection products and the associated risks. By contrast, the questions of whether and how farms can adapt their production systems and the resulting costs remain largely unanswered. Similarly, although the advantages and disadvantages of different policy implementation strategies for reducing plant protection products are discussed at both the European and national levels, the scientific publications are aimed primarily at intro-ducing a tax model. A concrete comparison of different policy measures and an assessment of the adaptation reactions as well as the associated consequences, taking agricultural expertise into ac-count, usually is not carried out. Against this background, based on a typical farm in the soil-climate region “Südhannover” and us-ing a focus group approach with farmers and advisors, the present dissertation investigated which farm adaptation measures can reduce the risks to humans and the environment associated with the use of plant protection products by 25 % or 50 % and what adaptation costs result from such measures. The risks posed by pesticides were determined with the help of the Pesticide Load Indi-cator (PLI). In order to be able to quantify the yield effects as a result of reduced pesticide use, regional and national trial evaluations were consulted. In addition, the expected yield effects were differentiated between a best and worst case and a “normal year”. In order to reduce the PLI by 25 %, farmers first will substitute less toxic active substances for those with a higher PLI. Similarly, weeds are increasingly regulated mechanically and non-selective herb-icides are replaced by mechanical tillage before summer crops. If no crop-specific PLI reduction is required and alternative crops are available, farmers will substitute crops with a low net margin per PLI unit used (e.g. rape with grain maize). If the PLI is halved, reduced fungicide and insecticide use across crops or later sowing dates in cereals also are suitable for reducing the risks from plant protection products. With a crop-specific PLI reduction of 25 %, changes in the net margin range from + 25 €/ha for sugar beet to – 60 €/ha for stubble wheat can be expected. If the PLI has to be reduced by 50 % for each individual crop, the range of adjustment costs among the crops increases further. While the PLI can be halved for oilseed rape with costs of about 50 €/ha, the net margin for stubble wheat or winter wheat after silage maize decreases by about 150 €/ha. At farm level, the results show that the more adaptation flexibility farmers are granted, the lower the adaptation costs. With a 25 % reduction of the PLI and taking into account the active ingredient substitution, manageable adaptation costs of between about 10 €/ha and 20 €/ha can be expected, depending on the adaptation flexibility granted. The change in grain units (GU) produced varies between + 4 % and – 5 %. On the other hand, the adjustment costs increase disproportionately strongly with a PLI reduction of 50 %, so that an operational net margin reduction of between about 80 €/ha and a maximum of 125 €/ha can be expected. With a PLI reduction of 50 %, the change in GU produced is between 0 and a maximum of -7 %. As farmers are in competition with their colleagues on the land and tenancy markets, they usually cannot afford to voluntarily switch to production systems that cause lower yields or cost increases and thus put them at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis neighbouring farms. Policymakers there-fore must change the framework conditions for all farms in such a way that the adaptation of pro-duction systems is either mandatory or economically viable. A wide range of policy measures are available for this purpose. Following on from the results of the adaptation costs, it therefore was examined how policymakers can use the "PLI" starting point to achieve their reduction target. In order to expose the selected policy measures and impact assessments to the critical judgement of the focus group, four concrete policy measures were developed that can achieve PLI reduction while addressing different secondary objectives. The measures examined include an individual farm PLI ceiling, a licensing system with tradable use rights, a state subsidy for low PLI hectare values and an increase in crop protection product prices depending on PLI. It was assumed that the policy measures would be introduced throughout the European Union. The effects that can be ex-pected on production, farm incomes and the administrative and control costs for farmers and the state were worked out in an impact assessment. The following results emerged: In the case of a PLI ceiling for individual farms and at the same time for individual crops, every farm must, in principle, reduce its PLI use if it does not yet meet the targets in the initial situation. This leads to an area-wide risk reduction without shifting the production of individual crops to third countries. However, the adjustment flexibility for farmers is comparatively low compared with other policy options. The control is carried out with the help of an online database. In contrast, an increase in plant protection prices depending on the PLI has the advantage of not having to control all farms, but only "bottlenecks" such as traders and manufacturers of plant pro-tection products. A disadvantage is the high negative income effect for the farms (> 220 €/ha) if the PLI is halved. In addition, readjustments of the levy level are to be expected in order to ap-proach the reduction target. If the PLI use rights are distributed in a licensing system depending on acreage, it can be expected that crops with a high net margin per PLI unit used will be cultivated preferentially. On the other hand, crops with a low net margin per PLI unit used will increasingly be pushed out of cultivation. Farm managers can decide on the basis of the market price for the tradable PLI use rights whether to use them themselves on the farm or sell them on the market. As a result, it is to be expected that PLI units will be saved, especially on marginal arable sites where this saving causes only low costs. The PLI units freed up there move primarily to regions where an above-average net margin per PLI unit can be produced. These are classically favourable locations for arable farming. The comparatively high administrative costs required for tradability must be viewed critically. For the state, this additional effort goes hand in hand with the advantage that the reduction target can be targeted precisely. If the state decides to promote low PLI hectare values with a premium, a negative income effect at farm level can be prevented, as the farm only participates if its costs are lower than the premium payment. The acceptance of the policy measure by farmers is high. A major challenge, however, is the controllability, as there are high incentives to undermine the system. DOI:10.3220/REP1678173967000

Bulletin zur schweizerischen Sicherheitspolitik ISBN:978-3-905696-88-2 ISSN:1024-0608

According to the World Health Organisation, climate change poses the greatest health threat to humanity. At the same time, an environmentally friendly lifestyle has a positive impact on our health, such as a plant-based diet. In order to counter climate change, society needs to be informed about climate-friendly and health-promoting measures. Therefore, an online workshop was initiated at the Medical Faculty of Ulm. In an accompanying study, it was determined whether this leads to changes in environmental knowledge and awareness among the participants.The online workshop consisted of four 2-hour sessions. Scientific basics on climate change and possible solutions were discussed. Other focuses were on health and the health system as well as environmental psychology and climate change denial. Participants could take part in an anonymous and voluntary online survey before (pretest) and after (posttest) the workshop.86 participants took part in the workshop, of whom 24 attended all appointments and completed both surveys. While hardly any changes were observed in the subsection of environmental emotion, perception and behavior, there was a significant increase in environmental knowledge in the posttest. The workshop was evaluated very positively. Furthermore, many participants were motivated to make a personal contribution to climate protection after the workshop.The workshop serves as a good example of how medical scientific findings can be shared at a societal level. The participants already showed a high level of environmental awareness in the pretest, which is why the question remains open as to how people can be sensitized to the (health) threats posed by climate change who do not proactively sign up for such an offer themselves.

Although economic inequality between countries has decreased in recent decades, inequality within countries has either increased or stagnated at a high level since the mid-1980s. At the same time, there is no nation state with an income distribution as unequal as the aggregate income distribution at the global level. Wealth inequality is even higher by several magnitudes and, within most states, as unequally distributed as global income. Economic inequality is also closely linked to the issue of negative externalities, more precisely to environmental and climate impacts, since in the current economic-technical system a high level of economic activity is associated with a high level of greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, enormous trade-offs exist within major international programs, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Climate Agreement. This is because creating a high level of prosperity, as envisioned for billions of people, currently goes hand in hand with using fossil fuels, for the most part, and thus with greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the world’s population continues to grow and there is a large financing gap between what the implementation of the SDGs and the Paris Agreement is expected to cost and what the states have pledged in terms of financing. These conflicting goals are one reason why, after decades of international negotiations by the states, only weak, inadequate climate protection measures have been adopted to date. Other reasons are the nature of the climate problem as a tragedy of the commons, the self-serving interests of individual states and the fact that climate change is addressed almost exclusively at the intergovernmental level. Established principles of justice, such as the polluter-pays principle and the ability-to-pay principle, are not adequately taken into account, with the result that necessary funds for a solution from the private sector cannot be activated. As a result, by 2050, approximately 500 billion tCO2e are expected to be emitted in excess of what would be permissible to meet international targets of limiting global warming to a maximum of 2°C (better 1.5°C). In the medium to long term, humanity needs to transition to an economic-technical system based largely on renewable energy sources and built on improved international cooperation. For this purpose, a reorientation of established justice principles in the context of Thomas Pogge’s conception of global justice will be elaborated on the basis of existing academic literature, in order to adequately introduce the polluter-pays principle and the ability-to-pay principle into the climate and development discourse. In this regard, it is necessary to take so-called top emitters more into account. This allows for promoting a higher degree of justice between individuals worldwide, so that the discourse does not remain at the state level only. Moreover, since funding for international cooperation is scarce, it is argued that the use of such funds should be guided by the needs principle. Moreover, the efficiency in terms of the impact of the funds used for climate protection and development is often very high where also the need is very high, e. g. because people are very poor and local ecosystems are particularly threatened by the effects of climate change. After deriving why top emitters play an important role in solving global problems, the question of who the top emitters actually are is addressed. In a first step, the group of private individuals with high incomes and assets is characterized in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and their ability to (financially) contribute to solving the climate and development issues. This is done using hybrid life cycle assessment methods and the analysis of global income and CO2e distributions. In this context, the conventional approach for calculating individuals’ climate footprints is extended to cover particular greenhouse gas-intensive areas of life such as private air travel and boat use which play a major role for top emitters. The result is an approximation of the annual emissions caused by the biggest top emitters. Results suggest that the biggest top emitters cause greenhouse gas emissions in the mid four-digit range (measured in tCO2e). In a second step, the question of who should be included in the group of top emitters is explored in such a way that the sum of top emitters’ emissions comprises a significant share of the total global emissions. In terms of social cceptability, this group of people is distinguished from those segments of the population that would carry a disproportionate financial burden if they were to pay additional contributions to climate change mitigation and sustainable development. It is proposed to include everyone who generates ≥ 10 tCO2e and who has a disposable income greater than the respective national average. Thus, individuals with high incomes (relative to the national average) are included and individuals with low incomes are excluded. In terms of national income distributions, the group of top emitters defined this way (called type 2) is approximately composed of: the top 30 percent of high-income countries, the top 10 percent of middle-income countries, and the top 1 percent of low-income countries. This amounts to about 700 million people worldwide, who together account for about 45 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and comprise about 10 percent of the world’s population. This characterization goes beyond the usual discussion of the role of „the world’s richest 10 percent “ as it is more socially acceptable by giving greater consideration to the polluter-pays principle and the ability-to-pay principle being established principles of justice. Because top emitters are often associated with luxurious lifestyles, such as yachts and private jets, it is suggested that this group be referred to as high emitters. The luxurious lifestyle described applies only to the top few percent of high emitters, who further on are suggested to be called top emitters as the subgroup of the highest high emitters. The thesis then elaborates why high and top emitters have a vested interest to voluntarily and substantially engage in international climate change mitigation and sustainable development. High and top emitters benefit most from the current international economic order because they get a large share of the profits. Therefore, the pressures and negative impacts from (a) inadequate climate action and (b) high levels of inequality on this order, on societies, and on high and top emitters are analysed. The physical effects of ongoing global warming, inequality itself, and national populist movements and parties resulting from inequality potentially lead to the destabilization of the international (economic) order, impairment of economic performance, loss of large assets, and curtailment of accustomed energy-intensive lifestyles, e.g. through flight bans. In addition, a vicious circle of poverty would probably also affect large parts of the high and also the top emitters, due to rising costs from adaptation and mitigation of climate change and costs from economic inefficiencies resulting from excessive inequality. These costs compete with expenditures that ensure a functioning efficient economic and social system, such as expenditures on education, research, pensions, the healthcare system, (digital) infrastructure, etc. High and top emitters therefore have a high self-interest to bear a significant part of these costs so that the international economic system continues to function and they can continue to benefit from it. From a justice perspective, they are also fulfilling their negative and positive obligations. If high and top emitters were to take responsibility for all global emissions and pay 30 euros per ton of tCO2e, the total amount would be about 1 trillion Euro, which is in the order of magnitude needed to make significant progress on international climate protection and sustainable development. Such an allocation could be made based on ability in terms of the ratio of disposable income to national average income. The thesis develops a suggestion for such an allocation as well. On the other hand, it is shown that multiple opportunities exist for high and top emitters to deploy their financial and influence-related resources in ways that reduce the pressures of climate change and high inequality on societies and the international order. In addition, a wide range of economic value creation potentials can be tapped for the necessary transition to a new economic-technical and social system based on renewable energy sources and international cooperation. These can be organised in a such a way that promotes sustainable development and international climate protection and thus enables a life in prosperity for about 10 billion people with an intact environment and climate system. If this process is organized wisely, it is also likely to create economic opportunities for high and top emitters as well as for societies worldwide as financial resources can be used effectively, efficiently and fair at the same time. Although economic inequality between countries has decreased in recent decades, inequality within countries has either increased or stagnated at a high level since the mid-1980s. At the same time, there is no nation state with an income distribution as unequal as the aggregate income distribution at the global level. Wealth inequality is even higher by several magnitudes and, within most states, as unequally distributed as global income. Economic inequality is also closely linked to the issue of negative externalities, more precisely to environmental and climate impacts, since in the current economic-technical system a high level of economic activity is associated with a high level of greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, enormous trade-offs exist within major international programs, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Climate Agreement. This is because creating a high level of prosperity, as envisioned for billions of people, currently goes hand in hand with using fossil fuels, for the most part, and thus with greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the world’s population continues to grow and there is a large financing gap between what the implementation of the SDGs and the Paris Agreement is expected to cost and what the states have pledged in terms of financing. These conflicting goals are one reason why, after decades of international negotiations by the states, only weak, inadequate climate protection measures have been adopted to date. Other reasons are the nature of the climate problem as a tragedy of the commons, the self-serving interests of individual states and the fact that climate change is addressed almost exclusively at the intergovernmental level. Established principles of justice, such as the polluter-pays principle and the ability-to-pay principle, are not adequately taken into account, with the result that necessary funds for a solution from the private sector cannot be activated. As a result, by 2050, approximately 500 billion tCO2e are expected to be emitted in excess of what would be permissible to meet international targets of limiting global warming to a maximum of 2°C (better 1.5°C). In the medium to long term, humanity needs to transition to an economic-technical system based largely on renewable energy sources and built on improved international cooperation. For this purpose, a reorientation of established justice principles in the context of Thomas Pogge’s conception of global justice will be elaborated on the basis of existing academic literature, in order to adequately introduce the polluter-pays principle and the ability-to-pay principle into the climate and development discourse. In this regard, it is necessary to take so-called top emitters more into account. This allows for promoting a higher degree of justice between individuals worldwide, so that the discourse does not remain at the state level only. Moreover, since funding for international cooperation is scarce, it is argued that the use of such funds should be guided by the needs principle. Moreover, the efficiency in terms of the impact of the funds used for climate protection and development is often very high where also the need is very high, e. g. because people are very poor and local ecosystems are particularly threatened by the effects of climate change. After deriving why top emitters play an important role in solving global problems, the question of who the top emitters actually are is addressed. In a first step, the group of private individuals with high incomes and assets is characterized in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and their ability to (financially) contribute to solving the climate and development issues. This is done using hybrid life cycle assessment methods and the analysis of global income and CO2e distributions. In this context, the conventional approach for calculating individuals’ climate footprints is extended to cover particular greenhouse gas-intensive areas of life such as private air travel and boat use which play a major role for top emitters. The result is an approximation of the annual emissions caused by the biggest top emitters. Results suggest that the biggest top emitters cause greenhouse gas emissions in the mid four-digit range (measured in tCO2e). In a second step, the question of who should be included in the group of top emitters is explored in such a way that the sum of top emitters’ emissions comprises a significant share of the total global emissions. In terms of social cceptability, this group of people is distinguished from those segments of the population that would carry a disproportionate financial burden if they were to pay additional contributions to climate change mitigation and sustainable development. It is proposed to include everyone who generates ≥ 10 tCO2e and who has a disposable income greater than the respective national average. Thus, individuals with high incomes (relative to the national average) are included and individuals with low incomes are excluded. In terms of national income distributions, the group of top emitters defined this way (called type 2) is approximately composed of: the top 30 percent of high-income countries, the top 10 percent of middle-income countries, and the top 1 percent of low-income countries. This amounts to about 700 million people worldwide, who together account for about 45 % of global greenhouse gas emissions and comprise about 10 percent of the world’s population. This characterization goes beyond the usual discussion of the role of „the world’s richest 10 percent “ as it is more socially acceptable by giving greater consideration to the polluter-pays principle and the ability-to-pay principle being established principles of justice. Because top emitters are often associated with luxurious lifestyles, such as yachts and private jets, it is suggested that this group be referred to as high emitters. The luxurious lifestyle described applies only to the top few percent of high emitters, who further on are suggested to be called top emitters as the subgroup of the highest high emitters. The thesis then elaborates why high and top emitters have a vested interest to voluntarily and substantially engage in international climate change mitigation and sustainable development. High and top emitters benefit most from the current international economic order because they get a large share of the profits. Therefore, the pressures and negative impacts from (a) inadequate climate action and (b) high levels of inequality on this order, on societies, and on high and top emitters are analysed. The physical effects of ongoing global warming, inequality itself, and national populist movements and parties resulting from inequality potentially lead to the destabilization of the international (economic) order, impairment of economic performance, loss of large assets, and curtailment of accustomed energy-intensive lifestyles, e.g. through flight bans. In addition, a vicious circle of poverty would probably also affect large parts of the high and also the top emitters, due to rising costs from adaptation and mitigation of climate change and costs from economic inefficiencies resulting from excessive inequality. These costs compete with expenditures that ensure a functioning efficient economic and social system, such as expenditures on education, research, pensions, the healthcare system, (digital) infrastructure, etc. High and top emitters therefore have a high self-interest to bear a significant part of these costs so that the international economic system continues to function and they can continue to benefit from it. From a justice perspective, they are also fulfilling their negative and positive obligations. If high and top emitters were to take responsibility for all global emissions and pay 30 euros per ton of tCO2e, the total amount would be about 1 trillion Euro , which is in the order of magnitude needed to make significant progress on international climate protection and sustainable development. Such an allocation could be made based on ability in terms of the ratio of disposable income to national average income. The thesis develops a suggestion for such an allocation as well. On the other hand, it is shown that multiple opportunities exist for high and top emitters to deploy their financial and influence-related resources in ways that reduce the pressures of climate change and high inequality on societies and the international order. In addition, a wide range of economic value creation potentials can be tapped for the necessary transition to a new economic-technical and social system based on renewable energy sources and international cooperation. These can be organised in a such a way that promotes sustainable development and international climate protection and thus enables a life in prosperity for about 10 billion people with an intact environment and climate system. If this process is organized wisely, it is also likely to create economic opportunities for high and top emitters as well as for societies worldwide as financial resources can be used effectively, efficiently and fair at the same time. Obwohl sich die ökonomische Ungleichheit in den letzten Jahrzehnten zwischen den Staaten verringert hat, ist die Ungleichheit innerhalb der Staaten seit Mitte der 1980er Jahre entweder gestiegen oder auf einem hohen Niveau stagniert. Dabei existiert kein Nationalstaat, in dem das Einkommen so ungleich verteilt ist, wie auf globaler Ebene. Die Vermögensungleichheit ist um ein Vielfaches höher und innerhalb der meisten Staaten so ungleich verteilt wie das globale Einkommen. Ökonomische Ungleichheit ist dabei eng mit dem Thema negativer Externalitäten, genauer mit Umwelt- und Klimabelastungen verbunden, da im gegenwärtigen wirtschaftlich-technischen System eine hohe ökonomische Aktivität mit einem hohen Maß an Treibhausgas-Emissionen verbunden ist. Daher existieren enorme Zielkonflikte innerhalb der wichtigen internationalen Programme, wie den Nachhaltigkeitszielen der Ver- einten Nationen (Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs) und dem Klimaabkommen von Paris. Denn der Aufbau eines hohen Wohlstandsniveaus, wie es für Milliarden von Menschen angestrebt wird, ist aktuell mit der Nutzung zumeist fossiler Energieträger und damit mit Treibhausgas-Emissionen verbunden. Zudem wächst die Weltbevölkerung weiter und es existiert eine große Finanzierungslücke zwischen dem, was die Umsetzung der SDGs und des Klimaabkommens von Paris voraussichtlich kostet und dem, was die Staaten an Finanzierungszusagen machen. Diese Zielkonflikte sind ein Grund dafür, dass nach Jahrzehnten internationaler staatlicher Verhandlungen bis heute nur schwache unzureichende Klimaschutzmaßnahmen beschlossen wurden. Weitere Gründe sind der Charakter des Klimaproblems als Tragödie der Allgemeingüter, das Interesse der einzelnen Staaten am eigenen Vorteil und der Tatsache, dass der Klimawandel fast ausschließlich auf zwischenstaatlicher Ebene adressiert wird. Dabei werden etablierten Gerechtigkeitsprinzipien, wie das Verursacher- und das Leistungsfähigkeitsprinzip nicht adäquat berücksichtigt, was zur Folge hat, dass notwendige Mittel für eine Lösung aus dem Privatsektor nicht aktiviert werden können. Das führt dazu, dass bis 2050 voraussichtlich 500 Mrd. tCO2e zu viel emittiert werden als zulässig wäre, um die internationalen Ziele, die Erderwärmung auf maximal 2°C (besser 1,5°C) zu begrenzen, zu erreichen. Mittel- bis langfristig muss an einem Übergang zu einem wirtschaftlich-technischen System gearbeitet werden, dass in großen Teilen auf erneuerbaren Energiequellen beruht und auf einer verbesserten internationalen Kooperation aufbaut. Dazu wird auf der Grundlage der Literatur eine Neuausrichtung etablierter Gerechtigkeitsprinzipien im Kontext einer Konzeption globaler Gerechtigkeit von Thomas Pogge erarbeitet, um vor allem das Verursacher- und das Leistungsfähigkeitsprinzip adäquat in den Klima- und Entwicklungsdiskurs einzubringen. Dazu ist es notwendig, sogenannte Top-Emitter stärker mitzuberücksichtigen, um ein höheres Maß an Gerechtigkeit zwischen Individuen weltweit zu fördern, sodass der Diskurs nicht nur auf Staatenebene verbleibt. Da die Finanzmittel für internationale Kooperation knapp sind, wird zudem dafür argumentiert, sich beim Einsatz solcher Mittel nach dem Bedarfsprinzip zu richten. Häufig ist außerdem die Effizienz in Hinblick auf die Wirkung der eingesetzten Gelder für Klimaschutz und Entwicklung dort sehr hoch, wo auch der Bedarf sehr hoch ist, z. B. weil die Menschen sehr arm sind und Ökosysteme besonders durch Auswirkungen des Klimawandels gefährdet sind. Nach der Herleitung, warum Top-Emitter eine wichtige Rolle bei der Problemlösung spielen, wird die Frage beantwortet, wer die Top-Emitter eigentlich sind? In einem ersten Schritt wird dazu die Gruppe der Privatpersonen mit hohen Einkommen und Vermögen in Bezug auf die Verursachung von Treibhausgas-Emissionen und ihre Leistungsfähigkeit, (finanzielle) Beiträge zur Problemlösung beizutragen, charakterisiert. Dies geschieht mithilfe von Methoden der hybriden Ökobilanzierung und der Analyse von globalen Einkommens- und CO2e-Verteilungen. In diesem Kontext wird das Vorgehen zur Berechnung individueller Klimafußabdrücke auf treibhausgasintensive Lebensbereiche, wie z. B. den privaten Flugverkehr und die Nutzung von Booten erweitert, die für die Top-Emitter eine große Rolle spielen. Das Ergebnis ist eine Annäherung an die jährlichen verursachten Emissionen der größten Top-Emitter. Demnach verursachen die größten Top-Emitter Treibhausgas-Emissionen im mittleren vierstelligen Bereich (gemessen in tCO2e). In einem zweiten Schritt wird der Frage nachgegangen, wer zur Gruppe der Top-Emitter zählen sollte, sodass die Summe der Emissionen der Top-Emitter einen signifikanten Anteil der globalen Gesamtemissionen umfasst. Im Sinne der Sozialverträglichkeit wird diese Personengruppe von den Teilen der Bevölkerung abgegrenzt, die in Bezug auf ihre Leistungsfähigkeit u. U. unverhältnismäßig stark belastet würden, wenn sie zusätzliche Beiträge zum Klimaschutz und für nachhaltige Entwicklung entrichten sollten. Es wird vorgeschlagen, alle diejenigen mit zu berücksichtigen, die ≥10 tCO2e verursachen und ein verfügbares Einkommen haben, das größer ist, als der jeweilige nationale Durchschnitt. Personen mit (relativ zum nationalen Durchschnitt) hohen Einkommen werden dabei mitberücksichtigt und Personen mit niedrigen Einkommen ausgeschlossen. Die so charakterisierte Gruppe der Top-Emitter (Typ 2 genannt) setzt sich in Bezug auf die nationalen Einkommensverteilungen zusammen aus: etwa den obersten 30 Prozent der Staaten mit hohen Einkommen, den etwa obersten 10 Prozent der Staaten mit mittleren Einkommen und den obersten 1 Prozent der Staaten mit geringen Einkommen. Das sind etwa 700 Mio. Menschen weltweit, die zusammen für etwa 45 Prozent der weltweiten Treibhausgas-Emissionen verantwortlich sind und etwa 10,8 Prozent der Weltbevölkerung umfassen. Diese Charakterisierung geht über die weit verbreitete Diskussion der Rolle „der reichsten 10 Prozent der Welt“ hinaus, weil sie sozialverträglicher ist, indem die etablierten Gerechtigkeitsprinzipien stärker berücksichtigt werden. Da Top-Emitter häufig mit einem luxuriösen Lebensstil assoziiert werden, z. B. mit Yachten und Privatflugzeugen, wird vorgeschlagen, diese Gruppe als High-Emitter zu bezeichnen. Der beschriebene luxuriöse Lebensstil trifft nur auf die obersten wenigen Prozent der High-Emitter zu, die als Untergruppe der High-Emitter weiterhin Top-Emitter genannt werden. Im Anschluss wird herausgearbeitet, warum High- und Top-Emitter ein Eigeninteresse haben, sich freiwillig und substantiell für internationalen Klimaschutz und nachhaltige Entwicklung zu engagieren. High- und Top-Emitter profitieren am meisten von der gegenwärtige internationalen wirtschaftlichen Ordnung. Deswegen werden die Drücke und negativen Auswirkungen durch unzureichende Klimaschutzmaßnahmen und ein hohes Niveau an Ungleichheit auf dieses System, die Gesellschaften und auf die High- und Top-Emitter analysiert. Die physikalischen Auswirkungen einer fortschreitenden Erderwärmung, die Ungleichheit selbst sowie durch Ungleichheit beförderte national-populistische Bewegungen und Parteien führen potentiell zu einer Destabilisierung der internationalen (wirtschaftlichen) Ordnung, einer Beeinträchtigung der Wirtschaftsleistung, zum Verlust großer Vermögenstitel und zu einer Beschränkung der gewohnten energieintensiven Lebensstile, z. B. durch Flugverbote. Zusätzlich droht eine Armutsspirale, die vermutlich auch weite Teile der High- und auch der Top-Emitter betreffen würde. Das liegt an steigenden Kosten durch Anpassung und Vermeidung an den Klimawandel und Kosten durch zu hohe Ungleichheit, die zu wirtschaftlichen Ineffizienzen führt. Diese Kosten konkurrieren mit Ausgaben, die ein funktionierendes leistungsfähiges Wirtschafts- und Sozialsystem gewährleisten, wie Ausgaben für Bildung, Forschung, Altersvorsorge, das Gesundheitssystem, (digitale) Infrastruktur etc. High- und Top-Emitter haben also ein hohes Eigeninteresse einen signifikanten Teil dieser Kosten zu übernehmen, damit das internationale wirtschaftliche System weiterhin funktioniert und sie weiterhin davon profitieren können. Aus Gerechtigkeitsaspekten erfüllen sie damit außerdem ihre negativen und positiven Pflichten. Wenn High- und Top-Emitter die gesamten weltweiten Emissionen übernehmen und 30 Euro pro Tonne tCO2e entrichten würden, käme man weltweit auf etwa 1 Bio. Euro und damit in die Größenordnung, die für signifikante Fortschritte für internationalen Klimaschutz und nachhaltige Entwicklung notwendig ist. Eine solche Zuteilung könnte entlang der Leistungsfähighkeit in Bezug auf das Verhältnis zwischen verfügbarem Einkommen und nationalem Durchschnittseinkommen vorgenommen werden. Andererseits wird aufgezeigt, dass vielfältige Möglichkeiten für High- und Top-Emitter existieren, ihre finanziellen und einflussbezogenen Ressourcen so einsetzen, dass die Drücke durch den Klimawandel und die hohe Ungleichheit auf die Gesellschaften und die internationale Ordnung reduziert werden. Zudem können für den notwendigen Übergang in ein neues technisches und soziales System basierend auf erneuerbaren Energiequellen und internationaler Kooperation vielfältige wirtschaftliche Wertschöpfungspotentiale erschlossen werden. Diese nachhaltige Entwicklung und internationalen Klimaschutz fördern und damit ein Leben in Wohlstand für etwa 10 Mrd. Menschen bei intakter Umwelt und einem intakten Klimasystem ermöglichen. Wird dieser Prozess klug organisiert, ergeben sich voraussichtlich außerdem ökonomische Chancen für High- und Top-Emitter sowie für die Gesellschaften weltweit, weil Finanzmittel effektiv, effizient und zugleich gerecht eingesetzt werden können.

Die vorgestellte Studie untersucht, welche Bedeutungen junge Erwachsene musikbezogenen Praktiken nach Ende der Schulzeit beimessen und wie sich ihr Umgang damit im weiteren Lebenslauf entwickelt. Die vorgestellte Studie stützt sich auf Interviewmaterial, das in einer Teilstichprobe eines größeren musikpädagogischen Verbundprojekts erhoben wurde, und knüpft an theoretische und empirische musikpädagogische Arbeiten zum Befähigungsansatz an. Die vorgestellten Ergebnisse werden entlang der rekonstruierten musikbezogenen Biographie eines Interviewpartners vorgestellt, und es werden abschließend Vorschläge für die Verknüpfung schulischer und außerschulischer Musizierangebote und Praktiken formuliert. (DIPF/Orig.) This qualitative study contributes to the sparse research on musical participation of young adults by exploring long-term impact of former musical practices on current ones. Based on the capability approach, semi-structures interviews with 31 academic and vocational students were conducted focusing on current and former musical practices in- and outside of school as well as the satisfaction with them. The musical biography of one participant is discussed in relation to the results of the whole sample. Findings indicate a striking impact of former musical practices and the importance of wellbeing for displaying agency. But even practices formerly not aimed by participants themselves can lead to genuine musical participation. In fostering pupils’ lifelong musical participation school teachers appear to be very important. (DIPF/Orig.)