While many European cities struggle with rising rents and increasing housing shortages, Vienna manages to maintain more stable conditions in international comparison. Affordable housing, high architectural standards, and a wide range of publicly subsidized housing options ensure that a large portion of Vienna’s population—regardless of income—has access to high-quality housing. Although Vienna is not without challenges, the city is frequently regarded as an international model. But how exactly does this model work—and what sets Vienna apart from other cities?

In many major European cities, finding quality housing is becoming increasingly difficult—especially for people with low or middle incomes. While cities like Berlin, Paris, or London are grappling with skyrocketing rents and social displacement, Vienna has managed for decades to provide a wide supply of affordable and high-quality housing. Numerous international media outlets—including The New York Times—regularly report on Vienna’s housing model, which is held up as a blueprint abroad. And indeed, average rents in Vienna are significantly lower than in other European metropolises—without compromising on quality.

What surprises many: Nearly two-thirds of Viennese residents live in subsidized housing—not in distant suburbs, but often in the heart of the city, with excellent transport links, thoughtful architecture, and comprehensive social infrastructure. Social housing is not a retreat for the needy but a core pillar of urban development and social equity. With 100 years of experience and continuous development, the Viennese model is internationally unique—delegations from around the world regularly come to learn how Vienna achieves what is considered impossible elsewhere.

A Brief History of Social Housing in Vienna

It wasn’t always this way. After World War I, Vienna faced a social catastrophe: slums, housing shortages, and dire hygienic conditions. The Social Democratic city government responded with one of Europe’s boldest and most sustainable housing initiatives—the municipal housing program of “The Red Vienna (das Rote Wien)”. Between 1919 and 1934, around 65,000 new apartments were built across 382 municipal housing complexes—financed through a progressive housing tax, socially tiered so that the wealthier paid more, while the poorer were exempt. The goal: Housing should not be a privilege but a fundamental right for all.

The first municipal complex was the Metzleinstalerhof on Margaretengürtel. Other landmarks like the famous Karl-Marx-Hof and Reumannhof remain architectural icons and embody a radically new concept of urban living: housing was not just shelter but a holistic social concept. These complexes integrated kindergartens, libraries, laundries, medical facilities, green spaces, and cultural venues. Designed by prominent Austrian architects, including Friedensreich Hundertwasser and students of Otto Wagner, these buildings remain unique even today.

Social housing was brutally interrupted during the Nazi era, but it experienced a renaissance after World War II—particularly from the 1950s onward, as Vienna once again invested heavily in public housing to combat shortages and promote social cohesion.

Three Pillars of Social Housing in Vienna

Today, nearly 500,000 residents live in municipal housing owned by the city, and about 60% of Vienna’s population lives in some form of publicly subsidized housing. Vienna’s social housing rests on three core pillars, which differ in ownership, tenancy conditions, and access requirements—but together create a dense network of affordable homes:

Municipal Housing (Gemeindebau)

Classic municipal housing is directly owned by the City of Vienna. With over 220,000 such apartments, nearly one in four homes in Vienna is municipal—making the city the largest landlord in Europe. These units are generally rented out indefinitely, with stable, legally capped rents, and are accessed via the city’s “Wiener Wohnen” housing service.

Cooperative Housing (Genossenschaftswohnung)

Cooperative apartments are developed by non-profit housing associations. These associations must operate cost-neutrally and may not generate profits. Tenants pay a one-time equity contribution (a construction financing fee) and benefit from long-term low rents, high living quality, and often lifelong tenancy rights. Many cooperatives also encourage resident participation and community-oriented living.

Additionally Subsidized Housing

The third category involves collaborations between the City of Vienna and non-profit developers to create new affordable housing. The city supports these efforts through land allocation, subsidies, or low-interest loans—but requires that a substantial portion of the units be rented out under strict rent caps. These projects often blend affordability with modern architecture, ecological construction methods, and alternative living concepts like intergenerational or co-living communities.

22,000 New Municipal Apartments in Progress

This diversity of housing—from classic municipal complexes to cooperative and additionally subsidized models—forms the foundation of Vienna’s housing success. And the city continues to build on this foundation. With the “Housing Offensive 2024+“, Vienna has launched its most ambitious new program: 22,200 new subsidized apartments for over 45,000 people are being created. About 16,100 of these are already under planning, preparation, or construction, with a total budget of €2.8 billion, supported by €1.1 billion in public housing subsidies. Eight additional developer competitions are expected to generate another 6,100 subsidized homes.

This approach emphasizes a holistic view of housing: Beyond affordability, special attention is given to climate-friendly construction, energy efficiency, and sustainable urban planning. New residential districts are increasingly developed on former industrial or infrastructure sites, transformed into modern and sustainable living spaces. Priorities include social diversity, proximity to schools, public transport, and local services, as well as generous green and recreational areas.

Challenges Ahead for Social Housing in Vienna

However, Vienna’s social housing model also faces challenges. The city is growing—and with every new resident comes added pressure on the housing market. People move to Vienna because the city works—but they too need affordable, quality homes. At the same time, rising construction and land prices make building new housing more difficult.

Maintaining the existing 220,000 municipal apartments is also a major undertaking. To modernize its housing stock, Vienna is currently investing about €1 billion to gradually renovate and update these units.

And because space in a growing city is limited, Vienna has taken precautions: two-thirds of all newly zoned land must be allocated to social housing. The city has also been actively purchasing land for years—currently owning about three million square meters (roughly 430 football fields) for future development.

Austria Leads in Social Housing – European Comparison

Austria leads the EU in terms of the share of publicly subsidized social housing. With approximately 24% social housing, the country provides nearly three times more than the EU average.

This has tangible effects—not just for those living in public housing or cooperatives, but for all tenants in Vienna. The large volume of social housing exerts downward pressure on the entire rental market. Public housing increases supply outside the private market, sets lower price benchmarks, and forces private landlords to keep rents in check. As a result, private market rents in Vienna remain comparatively affordable—an effect many cities with low social housing shares fail to achieve.

The numbers speak for themselves: In Vienna, average rent is about €10.30/m². In contrast: Amsterdam ~€27.80, Dublin ~€25.60, Paris ~€24.20, London ~€31.70. Even Munich (~€19.40) and Barcelona (~€18.10) are far above Vienna’s level.

Vienna’s Broader Support Measures

Beyond social housing, the city implements targeted measures to ease rent and utility costs.

One major goal is the long-term limitation of rent increases—and Vienna goes further than federal measures. While the Austrian federal government (run by the conservative-green coalition) has implemented only a temporary rent cap allowing annual increases of up to 5%, the SPÖ advocates for a permanent rent ceiling of just 2% per year. Vienna is already implementing this locally. The city also supports calls for a legal rent cap and the abolishment of fixed-term rental contracts.

Vienna also offers energy cost support: With its “Energy Assistance” program, the city helps low-income households pay for electricity, gas, and district heating. Additionally, Vienna provides a one-time €100 energy voucher, automatically sent to about 130,000 households—especially those exempt from the ORF broadcasting fee. Compared to other Austrian regions, Vienna invests the most in anti-inflation measures: €373.94 per capita—almost double the national average of €201.03.

How to Apply for Vienna Social Housing

In Vienna, the path to a municipal apartment is clear and intentionally low-threshold, to ensure broad access to affordable housing. The first step is to apply for a “Wohn-Ticket” via Vienna’s housing consultation office (Wohnberatung Wien). This document confirms eligibility for subsidized housing, which includes criteria such as:

• Having had your primary residence in Vienna for at least two years
• Austrian or equivalent citizenship
• Minimum age of 17
• Income below a certain threshold (adjusted by household size)

Starting May 1, 2025, access will be further eased: It will no longer be necessary to have lived at the same address in Vienna for two years—just to have had your main residence somewhere in Vienna. Eligibility will also be extended to anyone qualifying for rent or housing assistance.

Once you receive the Wohn-Ticket, you can actively apply for municipal or other subsidized apartments. Allocation is based on personal housing needs, such as urgency, apartment size, or family situation. The housing office provides support through consultations, online platforms, and housing offers.

From 2026, a centralized Vienna Housing Ticket will be introduced, with a more flexible point-based system. Eligibility criteria will be revised—for instance, requiring only two years of general residence in Vienna, not at a single address. This is designed to assist young people in shared housing or those needing to move due to separation or other life changes.

The post Vienna as a Global Role Model – How Social Housing Works in Vienna appeared first on TheBetter.news.

A new study shows for the first time how much economic damage specific oil companies have caused through their harmful emissions. According to the study, just five oil and gas companies are responsible for costs of €8 trillion. That is twice as much as the entire world spent on development aid over 30 years. But the corporations are not paying for the damage. While they make huge profits with their harmful practices, the public is left with the cost of the climate crisis. For now – because studies like this one could hold them accountable in court in the future.

A new American study published in the journal Nature shows for the first time to what extent individual corporations are responsible for the economic damage of the climate crisis. Researchers Christopher Callahan and Justin Mankin calculated that between 1991 and 2020, just five companies caused €8 trillion in damage through greenhouse gases. These are the oil and gas companies Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and BP. That is about twice as much as was spent worldwide on development aid in the same period.

In total, the researchers examined 111 corporations. Based on their emissions, they are responsible for climate damage totaling €24 trillion ($28 trillion). That is significantly more than the entire EU produced economically last year.

First Time: Global Climate Damage Attributed to Individual Oil Corporations

The study marks a milestone in climate research: For the first time, the link between emissions from individual corporations and the economic damage they caused is scientifically quantified. The researchers used a model that allowed them to trace regional economic losses caused by extreme heat back to the emissions of specific fossil fuel companies. Since there are fluctuations in the damage caused, the study used an average value. According to the study, oil giant Saudi Aramco is responsible for damage totaling €1.8 trillion – with a fluctuation range between €747 billion and €3.2 trillion.

The total amount of climate costs could be even higher. That’s because the authors only analyzed costs resulting from extreme heat. Other natural disasters connected to global warming, like flooding or sea level rise, were not included in the calculation.

Climate: Corporations Could Face Lawsuits

The new study is an important step in answering a key question: Who is responsible for the climate crisis? And who should ultimately pay for the damage? In the early 2000s, scientists began asking whether this responsibility could ever be proven. They wanted to know if it was possible to link emissions from individual companies directly to climate change.

“Just over 20 years later, we can answer that question with yes,” says study author Justin Mankin. “Our framework can provide robust emissions-based attribution of climate damages at the corporate level.”

This has not just scientific importance, but legal meaning too. Because the ability to attribute climate damage to specific companies could create a legal lever to hold them liable. In the U.S. states of Vermont and New York, there are already laws targeting major fossil fuel companies. These laws require them to help cover the costs of disasters that can be clearly linked to their CO₂ emissions. There are still lawsuits challenging these laws, but studies like this one could pave the way for more climate justice in court. This could also mean that in Europe, the biggest climate offenders might soon be held financially responsible – not just morally.

Study Author: Oil and Gas Companies Are Responsible for the Damage

So far, large corporations have profited from their climate-damaging products – but contributed nothing to cover the costs of the climate crisis. Unlike governments and the general public. People do use oil and gas products in daily life, but they are left alone to pay the price of climate change. Study author Christopher Callahan says that the wealth of the Western world is built on fossil fuels:

“But just like a pharmaceutical company isn’t excused from the negative effects of a drug – just because it also brings benefits – fossil fuel companies shouldn’t be let off the hook for the damage they caused, just because their products led to economic growth.”

The post 5 Oil Giants Caused €8 Trillion in Damage – Study Could Hold Them Accountable appeared first on TheBetter.news.

They cook and bake, clean, and set the table for their husbands – and millions of people watch them do it. Tradwives – short for “traditional wives” – have taken social media by storm in recent years. Their message is clear: nothing fulfills a woman more than being a housewife devoted to her husband and children. The Tradwife movement presents itself as a nostalgic lifestyle, celebrating the idealized image of 1950s homemaking. But what happens when right-wing parties begin to exploit this trend?

The scent of vanilla fills the air. Dressed in a pastel country-style outfit, a young woman with perfectly styled hair stirs a mixing bowl. The kitchen is immaculate. Soft music plays in the background. Her baby is asleep, and her husband – she later explains – will soon return from work, tired. She’ll serve him a warm meal and take pleasure in pampering him.

This scene isn’t from a 1950s commercial. It’s from Instagram. Millions follow videos, photos, and comments like these. The women call themselves Tradwives – traditional wives. On TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, they’ve become a growing trend.

The Return of the Perfect Housewife

Baking, cleaning, decorating, raising children, putting on makeup – for their husbands, of course. The content shared by Tradwives evokes a time when “self-fulfillment” was hardly a known concept. And that’s part of the allure. They present themselves as joyful homemakers who have willingly given up careers. Instead, they live for their families – and especially for their men.

In a world shaped by insecurity, pressure to perform, and burnout, their seemingly peaceful routines offer comfort: structured, loving, predictable. But beneath the polished surface of this “perfect world” lies more than just nostalgic flair. The movement has roots in the U.S. alt-right – a sphere where conservative values often merge with far-right ideology.

Tradwives Between Lipstick and Worldview

Not all Tradwives see themselves as political. Some, like influencer Malischka, even identify as feminists. In an interview with Tagesschau, she says: “I get an overwhelming amount of support from housewives who say: Finally, we’re being seen.” Other bloggers celebrate their roles – for example, as wives who “hold down the fort” for their husbands.

But the line between lifestyle and ideology is thin. Judith Götz, a researcher at the University of Innsbruck, warns:

“Tradwives convey far-right ideology to the general public without being seen as political actors.” It’s not just about cake recipes, she says – it’s about a very specific gender order.

“Tradwives promote a worldview also shared by right-wing extremists and Christian-conservative or fundamentalist circles. That’s why it’s attractive for far-right actors when influencers mainstream this ideology,” Götz adds.

The FPÖ and the Yearning for the 1950s

The yearning for traditional gender roles isn’t just an internet phenomenon. It’s making a political comeback as well. In Austria, for example, the FPÖ (Freedom Party of Austria) is calling for a “stay-at-home bonus” for parents who raise their children at home – a model already in place in Upper Austria since 2004. While it appears family-friendly at first glance, the bonus creates a trap for women: it makes re-entering the workforce harder, negatively impacts pensions, and reinforces outdated gender roles.

Parties like the FPÖ and Germany’s AfD (Alternative for Germany) promote the traditional family model as the “foundation of a functioning society.” Women should take care of the household and children, while men earn the money. Since many Tradwives embody and promote exactly this model – reaching millions – they’ve become effective multipliers for these ideas.

Anti-Feminism as a Core Element of the Far Right

According to a study by Ipsos, more than one-third of Millennials (those born between 1980 and 2000) believe that a man who stays home with the children is “not a real man.” Views like this provide fertile ground for anti-feminist propaganda – cleverly disguised in aesthetic imagery of apple pies, perfectly folded laundry, and smiling wives.

According to Germany’s Federal Agency for Civic Education (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung), anti-feminism plays a central role in far-right ideology. It is an ideology actively opposed to feminist positions and rooted in rigid traditional gender norms: men are portrayed as strong, combative providers, while women are seen as caring and apolitical. The far-right worldview inherently places women as subordinate to men. Most Tradwife videos present exactly this image and aim to spread it among a younger audience.

Götz emphasizes that anti-feminism is a core component of far-right ideology. Women are portrayed as nurturing and apolitical – the opposite of the emancipated woman who asserts herself independently. The Tradwife movement plays into this narrative and becomes, often without explicitly stating it, a Trojan horse in political discourse.

Feel-Good Imagery with Far-Right Ideology

The connection between Tradwives and right-wing ideology is especially clear in the case of Lukreta, a German women’s network. Officially, they advocate for “women’s rights” – but on Instagram, they celebrate “Stolzmonat” with women draped in German flags. It’s a calculated counter-narrative to queer Pride Month, intended to incite hatred against LGBTQ+ people, staged by right-wing conservative and extremist actors. Lukreta merges wholesome imagery with far-right ideology – and maintains direct ties to Germany’s AfD.

The Tradwife as Influencer: Branding, Media, and Millions

While traditional housewives received no compensation for their work, some Tradwives today earn significant income. Some have built entire businesses around their personal brand. One example is Ballerina Farm: Hannah Neeleman, a mother of eight with over 10.1 million followers, doesn’t just sell a lifestyle – she sells actual products. What looks like a spontaneous scene at the stove is in fact curated content – complete with camera crew, marketing strategy, and an online shop.

This shows that behind the supposedly simple life lies a sophisticated business model. The role of the housewife is being professionalized – and idealized at the same time.

The Dark Side of the Tradwife Illusion

As harmonious as the images appear, the life of a Tradwife can come with serious risks. Emotional and financial dependence on a husband can be dangerous. Without independent employment, a woman may have few options in crisis situations – particularly in toxic or abusive relationships.

“If you’re financially dependent on a male breadwinner and don’t have your own income, it becomes much harder to leave an abusive relationship,” warns Judith Götz, an expert in anti-feminism and right-wing extremism.

At the same time, Tradwives glamorize unpaid care work on social media – without showing its emotional or physical toll. The image of femininity they present is romanticized and detached from reality.

In the end, the Tradwife movement is more than a fleeting social media trend. It reflects a deeper cultural longing for clarity and simplicity – one that easily becomes a vessel for right-wing ideologies. What starts with a lovingly set dinner table can quickly become a political platform. And while millions of likes are collected, outdated gender roles quietly make their way back to the center of society.

The post Tradwives: How the Social Media Trend Strengthens Right-Wing Ideology appeared first on TheBetter.news.

The bicycle industry is booming. But how are the bikes that help reduce traffic and protect the climate actually made? Major brands like Bianchi, Canyon, Centurion, Giant, and Merida accept exploitation in pursuit of profit. As uncovered by an investigation by Le Monde Diplomatique, thousands of migrant workers in Taiwan’s factories are subjected to forced labor. They are burdened with debt owed to recruiters, stripped of their passports, and live in rat-infested accommodations.

The global bicycle market, valued at approximately 66 billion US dollars (as of 2024), is a billion-dollar business. Le Monde Diplomatique has investigated what lies behind the industry’s shiny facade: working conditions in Taiwan’s bicycle parts factories that the International Labour Organization (ILO) classifies as forced labor.

Recruiters Charge Workers Thousands in Fees Before They Even Begin

Taiwan has become a hub of global bicycle manufacturing, particularly in the city of Taichung. Many of the world’s leading bicycle brands—Bianchi, Canyon, Centurion, Giant, Merida, Pinarello, REI, Scott, Specialized, and Trek—have been manufacturing bicycles or parts in Taiwan for years. Around 40 percent of all bicycles exported to Europe come from there, with the Netherlands, Germany, and the United Kingdom being the primary importers.

Manufacturers like Giant, Merida, and Maxxis operate production facilities in Taiwan and, alongside various suppliers, employ thousands of migrant workers from Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines. These workers produce bicycle parts and tires, often under exploitative conditions.

Desperate for employment, these workers are recruited through agencies that charge them exorbitant fees—often several thousand dollars—just to secure a job. This amount is more than many workers will earn over several years.

The fees vary by country of origin. Interviewees told Le Monde Diplomatique that Filipino workers were charged $1,500 to $1,700, while Vietnamese workers paid up to $6,000.

Indebted Workers Left Without Passports

To pay these high recruitment fees, workers must borrow money from banks or relatives even before they begin work. In many cases, they are forced to take out loans with exorbitant interest rates, trapping them in a cycle of debt bondage.

Victims also report being deprived of their freedom: their passports are confiscated, and they are sometimes not allowed to manage their own wages.

Rats in Dormitories and Wage Deductions for Minor Infractions

The consequences of these practices are far-reaching. Workers describe dismal living conditions in overcrowded and unsanitary dormitories provided by the companies. Rats are reportedly common between the beds. Minor violations of company rules can result in wage deductions.

The bicycle manufacturers’ responses to the revelations were mixed. Some, like Giant, have promised to end the collection of recruitment fees for new workers starting in 2025—though only for new hires. Giant has also pledged to stop withholding wages.

Some European brands, such as Bianchi and Canyon, have announced that they will no longer tolerate recruitment fees and plan to improve working conditions. However, the issue of debt bondage among thousands of existing workers remains unresolved.

Two suppliers of the German bicycle and automotive tire company Continental have compensated their workers with over 3 million US dollars following Le Monde Diplomatique’s publication.

International Cycling Community Less Outraged Than Expected

Other companies, including Merida, have refused to commit to ending these practices or providing retroactive compensation. Debt bondage remains a persistent issue across the industry. Two U.S. manufacturers, Specialized and Trek, remained silent for months after the revelations.

Not a single bicycle manufacturer has committed to ensuring that migrant workers are reimbursed for the fees they paid.

Moreover, international cycling events and teams sponsored by these brands have reacted with surprising restraint. According to Le Monde Diplomatique, critical coverage—such as during the Tour de France or Giro d’Italia—is virtually nonexistent. Major brands produce racing bikes, and trade magazines rely on advertising revenue from these companies.

Corporations and Taiwan’s Government Benefit from Exploitation

Companies like Merida and Maxxis have profited from exploitative practices for decades, as has the Taiwanese government—for example, the state-run postal service holds shares in Giant. The EU and the U.S. have already taken steps: Starting in 2027, the EU will ban the import of goods produced with proven forced labor—a regulation already in effect in the U.S., which applies even on the basis of suspicion.

Despite some improvements, working conditions in Taiwan’s bicycle industry remain a persistent issue. Recruitment fees and the resulting debt bondage continue to affect not only the workers themselves but also damage the reputation of the entire industry.

The post Canyon, Bianchi, Scott & Co: Investigation Uncovers Forced Labor in Taiwan for High-End Bicycle Brands appeared first on TheBetter.news.

Solar energy could have changed the world long ago. The technology was discovered in the 19th century – but it took almost two centuries to become widely used. This is the history of solar energy: why it was ignored for so long – and what finally led to its global breakthrough.

Humanity has known how to convert sunlight into energy since the 19th century. But it’s only in the last 40 years that we’ve been generating solar power on a large scale. Were we asleep for the 180 years in between? The history of solar energy shows: innovation alone doesn’t change the world. Political decisions are also needed to implement innovations.

“I put my money on the sun and solar energy,” the inventor Thomas Edison is said to have told car manufacturer Henry Ford in 1931. He was convinced that the future belonged to solar energy.

“What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle this.”

In Edison’s lifetime, the technology behind solar panels and PV systems was already well understood. But they weren’t being built. Instead, oil refineries, gas plants, and coal power stations were constructed. That’s because fossil fuels were simply more profitable for companies. For decades, hardly any money was invested in further solar research, which meant that electricity from solar energy remained far more expensive than power from fossil sources.

Since the 1970s, the Price of Solar Power Has Dropped by 99 Percent

But something interesting happened in the mid-1970s: the price of solar electricity suddenly began to drop rapidly.

Since 1975, the cost of solar electricity has fallen by an incredible 99 percent. Suddenly, it became affordable for private individuals to install solar panels on their rooftops. In most countries, solar energy—alongside wind and hydropower—is now the cheapest form of energy generation. According to forecasts, this will soon be the case worldwide. But how did the price drop so fast? And why didn’t it happen much earlier? To understand that, we need to look at the history of solar energy—a history full of missed opportunities, but also of dedicated people who ultimately managed to stand up to the fossil fuel industry.

The History of Solar Energy: We Could Have Built Solar Panels Over 180 Years Ago

Solar energy was invented back in the 19th century. In 1839, French physicist Alexandre Edmond Becquerel was the first to describe the photovoltaic effect—the basic principle behind solar panels. So more than 180 years ago, we already knew how to convert light particles into energy. But it took more than a hundred years before the first solar panel was built.

It wasn’t until 1953 that a research team at Bell Labs—the R&D department of the American phone company AT&T—succeeded in creating a usable panel. Its efficiency was only 4–6% (today’s panels have around 20%), but this time the public recognized it as a revolutionary milestone. The New York Times wrote:

“Humanity may soon realize one of its greatest dreams: the use of the sun’s nearly endless energy for the benefit of society.”

The excitement was huge. But politics did nothing. Neither the U.S. nor European governments invested in the new technology. Private energy companies could have built solar systems on their own—but since the technology was still in its infancy, solar was far too expensive for them. So the big solar hype never materialized. Should Edison have invested his money elsewhere?

While the great inventor was ahead of his time, politics remained stuck in 19th-century thinking and aligned with the interests of the oil industry. It would have taken a strong state willing to make major investments in research and solar installations. But no state in the world invested significant amounts.

“Solar Socialism” – For Ronald Reagan, Solar Investments Were Leftist Nonsense

That changed for a while in the 1970s—specifically in 1973, during the first oil crisis. Within months, the price of oil jumped from three to twelve U.S. dollars per barrel. The U.S. was suddenly forced to look for alternative energy sources and invested some money in a solar research program. In the late 1970s, President Jimmy Carter even had solar panels installed on the roof of the White House. But his successor—the Republican Ronald Reagan—had them removed again. He also shut down the research program. To Reagan, investing in solar energy was a left-wing waste of money. He dismissively referred to it as “solar socialism.”

The Technology Might Still Be Underdeveloped Today, If Not for a Few Persistent Scientists

The technology behind solar electricity might still be underdeveloped today—and solar panels still unaffordable—if it weren’t for a few dedicated scientists who kept researching. One such group was in Australia, where a team led by Professor Martin Green continued working on the solar panel of the future.

At the same time, more and more people began to realize how important switching to renewable energy sources was to combat climate change. Many of them became politicians. The 1980s were the time when the green movement, in the form of environmentalist parties, entered parliaments. One person who was particularly enthusiastic about solar energy was German local councillor Hans-Josef Fell. He was convinced that electricity from solar energy could become much cheaper—if only more was invested in production.

To kickstart that process, he introduced the world’s first “solar premium” in his municipality of Hammelburg in Bavaria. This was essentially a subsidy for anyone who owned a solar panel. Suddenly, there was an incentive to buy solar panels. The subsidy was financed via energy bills from all electricity users—essentially a redistribution in favor of renewables.

In the 2000s, Solar Panel Production Took Off

In 1998, Germany’s Social Democrats formed the country’s first and (so far) only red-green coalition with the Greens. Fell saw this as a great opportunity. He drafted legislation that provided large subsidies for solar installations. And indeed: in 2000, the red-green government passed the Renewable Energy Act (EEG), which gave preferential treatment to renewable energy. This created an incentive for companies to invest in solar energy—which they did: over the next 15 years, the German energy sector invested around 200 billion euros in renewable sources.

Germany’s billions gave a massive boost to global solar module development. The world market grew thirtyfold, energy companies ramped up production, and millions of solar panels were built. Step by step, the price dropped—just as Hans-Josef Fell had imagined. It turns out that Thomas Edison was right after all.

China Is Now the Global Leader in Renewable Energy

As a result, China began producing a large number of solar panels. The Chinese leadership had also recognized the huge potential and included solar energy in its 2001 five-year plan. The result: massive state investments, subsidies, and research programs. A large share of the solar modules sold to Germany in the early 2000s came from Chinese manufacturers.

Experts agree that China played a historic role in further developing solar technology and expanding production facilities. Shi Zhengrong founded the solar company SunTech Power in 2001, which became the world’s largest solar panel producer by 2012. He also played a key role in growing the global solar market and helping drive down prices. Today, China is the undisputed world market leader in solar energy. Chinese solar panels now sell for under 100 euros. This is why more and more people in poorer countries—such as Pakistan—are switching to solar power.

Have Prices Fallen Too Fast?

That solar electricity is now so cheap sounds good at first—and for consumers, it is. But it also creates a problem, as economist Brett Christophers explains in his book The Price is Wrong. According to him, prices for solar (and wind) power have dropped “too fast.” That may sound odd. But he argues that because the prices are now so low, private energy companies no longer find it worthwhile to invest in renewables. In an interview with the German business magazine Surplus, he says:

“Most studies estimate that the average return on wind or solar projects is between 5 and 7 percent. In comparison: oil and gas companies only invest in new drilling projects if they’re sure the return will be at least twice as high. Upstream fossil energy is very profitable, with margins of 15 to over 20 percent. There’s no doubt that fossil fuels are much more profitable than renewable energy.”

His conclusion is clear: even today, we can’t rely on private energy companies and hope that the economy will shift to clean energy on its own. That’s why Christophers calls for state investment.

Political Decisions Matter More Than Invention

Looking at the history—and the present—of solar energy, one thing becomes clear: innovation is important, but political decisions are even more crucial. Without the decisions by countries like Germany and China to invest in solar energy in the early 2000s, we would have far fewer solar installations today. Likewise, we need public investment today to continue expanding solar energy. Relying on private companies alone has already cost humanity 180 years.

This article was inspired by: Rutger Bregman – Moral Ambition: How to Stop Wasting Your Talent and Build Something That Truly Matters.

Solar Energy Instead of Power Outages in Pakistan: How the Population is Driving the Countries Energy Transition

The post The Forgotten Invention: Why Solar Energy Took 180 Years to Succeed appeared first on TheBetter.news.

In cities like Zurich, Barcelona, or Bari, entire apartment buildings are turning into Airbnb hotspots. Vienna has managed to contain this trend. The city made it clear early on: apartments are not investment objects – they are places to live. In residential zones, short-term rentals are only allowed with official permission – and that permission is rarely granted. This protects not only tenants but also social cohesion. Now, a national rental register is planned at the federal level.

What began as a platform for the occasional couchsurfing stay has become a profitable business model. In many cities, investors buy up entire buildings to rent them out through platforms like Airbnb. Often, this happens without registration and without paying taxes – at the expense of those who actually need these apartments as homes. Vienna’s Deputy Mayor responsible for housing, Kathrin Gaál, says she wants “homes to be places to live – not tools for making money.”

Vienna Limits Short-Term Rentals with Clear Rules and a 90-Day Cap

The Vienna Chamber of Labour, Austria’s official workers’ representation body, estimates that around 14,000 apartments in the city are listed on Airbnb. Compared to other European cities, that number is quite low. One reason is the city’s clear rules: since 2018, anyone wanting to rent out a flat on platforms like Airbnb or Booking.com must either use their main residence or hold a commercial rental license.

In addition, since summer 2024, short-term rentals have been capped at 90 days per year. Anyone who wants to rent out for more days needs a permit under Vienna’s housing law – and that permit is rarely granted in residential areas. The city has also created a special unit within the building authority. Nine employees work exclusively on investigating suspicious listings and uncovering illegal rentals. Violations can lead to fines of up to €50,000.

How Vienna Fights Illegal Rentals

In 2023 alone, more than 400 suspected illegal listings were reported in Vienna’s 3rd district – triggered by the campaign “Homes not Hotels,” which allows residents to anonymously report suspicious apartments. At a recent press conference, the organizers announced that over 1,400 suspected cases have been reported across the city – roughly ten percent of all Airbnbs in Vienna.

Even municipal housing is affected. Illegal short-term rentals occur there as well. Since 2022, more than 70 tenants have been permanently banned. In many cases, the city is demanding the illegally earned profits be paid back.

Austria Follows: National Rental Register in the Works

While Vienna already has legal tools to act, many municipalities outside the capital lack a legal basis to regulate short-term rentals. The federal government now plans to introduce a national online register for tourist accommodations (“registration requirement for private rentals”). This would allow cities to see for the first time which apartments are being listed on platforms like Airbnb – and whether it is legal. The Austrian Association of Cities supports the plan.

The Airbnb Effect: Zurich Shows What Happens Without Rules

Zurich shows how quickly housing markets can shift when clear regulations are missing. Official data indicates that over 2% of all apartments in the city are listed on Airbnb – in some popular districts, the figure exceeds 6%. The result: housing becomes scarce, rents rise, and neighborhoods lose their character. Left-wing parties are pushing back and have launched a new initiative to better regulate Airbnb.

Other cities are also taking action against the “Airbnb effect.” In Barcelona, apartments can only be rented out with a special license – and new licenses are rarely issued. Paris has introduced a 90-day limit and uses a mandatory registration system. In Amsterdam, individuals may rent out their homes to tourists for only 30 nights per year. Anything beyond that is considered illegal.

The post Fighting the Airbnb Effect: What Vienna Is Doing Right appeared first on TheBetter.news.

Just a few years ago, Paris was known for its thick layer of smog. Diesel exhaust and fine dust made it one of the most polluted capital cities in Europe. But today, the French capital tells a different story. Strict emission rules, speed limits, diesel bans, and fewer parking spaces have cleaned up the air—and prevented thousands of premature deaths.

Less Asphalt, More Life: Paris Shifts to People

Since her election in 2014, Mayor Anne Hidalgo has pursued a clear goal: to give Paris back to its people—not to cars: The city is replacing parking spots with green spaces, turning grey plazas into parks, and transforming streets into pedestrian-friendly zones. A key symbol of this shift: in 2016, Paris banned cars from the right bank of the Seine and created a riverside promenade that is now seen as a landmark of urban renewal.

Paris has cut toxic air pollution by up to 40% by reducing car traffic

Just like London’s ULEZ, it’s proof that smart, bold policies deliver cleaner air and better health.

Now it’s time for more cities to step up and put health first. Learn morehttps://t.co/cXF7iobvoS

— Possible (@_wearepossible) May 6, 2025

From Car Capital to Bike City

The most visible change? Bikes. Paris has removed traffic lanes and turned them into bike paths. The city’s cycling network has grown by 40% since 2015 and now stretches over 1,000 kilometers. Between 2015 and 2026, Paris is investing more than €400 million in bike infrastructure. And it’s paying off: in many neighborhoods, bikes now outnumber cars. Today, less than 5% of trips in Paris are made by car.

Parisians Say Yes to Green Streets: 500 Roads to Go Car-Free

On March 24, 2025, residents of Paris backed a new plan to pedestrianize 500 additional streets across the city. Though only 4% of registered voters took part in the referendum, nearly two-thirds voted in favor of the so-called “garden roads.” As a result, the city will remove around 10,000 parking spots and replace them with trees, benches, and green public spaces. The goal: around 25 new car-free streets per arrondissement, prioritizing neighborhoods near schools. For Mayor Anne Hidalgo and her team, it’s a clear mandate to keep transforming Paris into a cleaner, greener, and more livable city.

The 15-Minute City: Everything Within Reach

Paris is also pushing the idea of the “15-minute city”: a place where everything—doctors, schools, markets, and culture—is just a short walk or bike ride away. Known in French as “la Ville du Quart d’Heure,” this concept aims to cut traffic, support local businesses, and create vibrant, walkable neighborhoods.

Half the Emissions, One-Third Fewer Deaths

The results speak for themselves: since 2014, air quality in Paris has improved dramatically. According to environmental agency Airparif, fine dust pollution has dropped by about 40%, and nitrogen dioxide levels have fallen by 50%. Most impressive: between 2010 and 2019, deaths caused by air pollution fell by one third. Or, as Mayor Anne Hidalgo puts it:

“Paris is spearheading a number of initiatives to improve people’s health and well-being, and advancing climate action and clean air zone policies to put humans, rather than vehicles, at the heart of our city.”

The post Clean Air, More Bikes, Fewer Deaths: How Paris Is Reinventing Itself appeared first on TheBetter.news.

While many small towns are losing their last pub, Freyung in Bavaria is telling a different story. Locals saved their brewery, built a community sauna, and are now turning an abandoned tavern into a lively cultural center. Their tool for success? Cooperatives. These not only preserve buildings – they also build lasting community bonds.

From Empty Pub to Vibrant Cultural Hub

In the center of Freyung, a town of 7,000 residents, an old tavern had been standing empty for years. Now, locals are breathing new life into it through a cooperative. Their vision includes a festival hall for clubs, studios upstairs, and concerts in the basement. Already, 70 people have committed to buying shares. Initiator Roland Pongratz says: 

“It’s important to me that there are places where people can meet,”

Renovations are set to begin later this year – provided enough people join. Planning is underway, discussions with local businesses are ongoing, and the founding team remains optimistic.

Saving the Brewery: A First Big Win

But this isn’t Freyung’s first citizen-led project. Back in 2014, the town’s historic brewery, Lang Bräu, was on the verge of closure. The owner planned to sell to a large brewery, which would have ended local production and cost many jobs. Rather than giving up, the mayor rallied citizens to form a cooperative. With five founding members and €250,000 in pledges, they saved both the brewery and a vital part of the town’s identity.

Today, 280 people are part of the brewery cooperative. Joining costs €5,000 per share. Founding member Richard Gibis puts it simply:

“Home is a part of our quality of life – and everyone can help shape it. One person can’t do it alone, but a community can.”

The brewery now distributes profits – either in beer or lemonade. Meanwhile, the scent of malt once again drifts through Freyung’s streets.

Sweating Together: Freyung’s Own Sauna

Another project highlights the same spirit. For decades, no public sauna existed within 50 kilometers of Freyung. Instead of waiting for change, 120 locals built one themselves. Led by Peter Sammer, the group raised over €320,000 through two years of voluntary effort.

Today, Freyung’s sauna is a reality – and the city is adding a public natural swimming pond nearby to complement it.

A Global Movement for Local Power

Freyung’s success is part of a larger trend around the world. In Darup, Germany, a citizen-led cooperative saved the last village pub. In Oaxaca, Mexico, Indigenous farmers formed a coop to break free from exploitative middlemen. Meanwhile, in France, workers at the iconic Duralex glass factory turned their struggling company into a cooperative, saving every job. Across the globe in Taipei, Taiwan, artists transformed a rundown neighborhood into a thriving green community.

The post Citizens Save Their Town: Brewery, Sauna, and Cultural Center Run by the People appeared first on TheBetter.news.

While many countries struggle to contain housing costs, Austria is setting an example of how governments can step in to make living affordable again. The new coalition of the conservative ÖVP, the center-left SPÖ, and the liberal NEOS has agreed on a set of landmark housing reforms. These include a rent freeze in 2025 for most regulated rentals—such as older apartments and social housing—stronger tenant protections, and, for the first time, limits on increases in unregulated rents.

25% in Two Years: Why Austria Needed Urgent Rent Reform

Between 2021 and 2023, rents in Austria increased up to 25%. Automatic inflation-based adjustments hit tenants hard, especially those in older apartments or social housing. The result: a growing number of people struggling to keep a roof over their heads.

The SPÖ had long called for a legal rent freeze. With public pressure mounting, the new government coalition responded. Their housing plan halts rent increases for over a million homes in 2025 and caps them in the years that follow—1% in 2026, and 2% in 2027.

Who Benefits from the Rent Freeze?

The new rent regulations apply to a broad segment of Austria’s population:

• 516,000 older apartments with category or reference rents
• Around 697,000 cooperative apartments exist in Austria, about half of which are fully paid off—and thus covered by the rent freeze.
• 220,000 municipal housing units in Vienna (which already froze rents until 2025)

Altogether, more than a million households are protected. Without intervention, average rents would have gone up by 3.16% this April alone—costing tenants an estimated €138 million.

A First in Austria: Rent Limits for the Free Market

What makes this reform even more notable is the government’s decision to extend protections to unregulated rentals for the first time in history. These include new buildings, single-family homes, and employee housing—segments that have typically been excluded from rent controls.

Starting in 2025, landlords may raise rents by only half of the inflation rate that exceeds 3%. For instance, if inflation is at 6%, they may raise rents by only 4.5%. Beginning in 2028, this rule will apply across the board.

This is a pioneering move—balancing inflation realities with the need for housing stability.

Longer Lease Terms Bring Stability to Tenants

In Austria, rental contracts can currently be limited to just three years. This leaves tenants in a state of uncertainty, with no guarantee of being able to stay in their home. The new housing package extends the minimum lease term to five years, giving people more security and time to plan their lives.

This change is especially important in urban areas, where housing pressure is highest and short-term leases are common.

Social Housing Funds Must Go Back to Housing

One of the most overlooked, yet powerful elements of the reform is the reallocation of Austria’s housing subsidies. Until now, states had discretion over how to use nearly €3 billion in federal housing funds each year—often diverting the money to infrastructure or public spaces instead of actual housing.

From now on, these funds must be used strictly for building affordable housing. A long-standing demand of the SPÖ and housing activists is finally becoming law.

The post Austria Moves to Cap Rents and Rethinks the Rental System appeared first on TheBetter.news.

In the Bavarian village of Amerang, distances are long and buses rarely run. So, is it possible to live in the countryside without owning a car? Amerang proves that it is: 22 households share just three cars. What began as a temporary fix has become a model for community-driven, climate-friendly mobility. Similar carsharing projects in France, Canada, and the Netherlands are also transforming rural life. This is how Bavaria makes rural carsharing work.

A car of your own – often a necessity in rural areas.

In 2006, Tilo Teply moved with his family of six from Munich to Amerang – a small village in Upper Bavaria with fewer than 4,000 residents. It lies 25 kilometers from Rosenheim, has no train connection, and a bus network that often shuts down on weekends. Owning a car seemed like the only option.

“At first, we borrowed cars from relatives,” Teply told the German sustainability magazine Utopia. But this wasn’t a permanent solution – so they got their own car, which they shared with neighbors.

Living in a rural area without a car is limiting. So the Teply family looked for a solution that would make daily life easier while still being sustainable. Then came the turning point: At a local conference, a nearby carsharing association presented their system. That sparked something. Together with five other households, Teply founded the Amerang Carsharing Community (AmAG). Today, AmAG operates three vehicles, a car trailer, and offers an alternative for anyone wanting to live car-free.

Clear rules, strong community: How AmAG works

AmAG has clear rules to ensure ease of use for all members:

• A one-time deposit of 450 euros, refundable upon exit
• A monthly fee of five euros, plus usage-based rates
• Booking via online system or phone
• A local garage provides maintenance and repairs

Even the municipality itself is part of AmAG and uses the cars for official purposes – a strong sign of cooperation between the community and local government.

Fewer cars means more space – and stronger ties

The system doesn’t just reduce traffic and free up space in the village center – it brings people together who might otherwise never connect:

Idealists who choose to live without a car.

Young adults who can’t afford a vehicle.

Older residents who no longer drive but want to stay mobile.

When a ride is planned, others often spontaneously join – and carpooling emerges naturally. As Teply puts it:

“You need to be willing to engage and compromise. Carsharing definitely improves social skills.”

His wish for the future? A carport for AmAG – so elderly members don’t have to scrape ice off the windshields in winter.

From Bavaria to Canada: Rural carsharing is on the rise

Other countries also have successful models showing that cars can be shared outside big cities:

• France: In the Ardèche region, residents share electric vehicles via a central booking system, just like in Amerang.
• Netherlands: The initiative OnzeAuto promotes neighborhood-based electric car sharing, self-organized and self-managed. Instead of paying commercial providers, residents run the system themselves – from bookings to maintenance. This local approach increases acceptance and strengthens community bonds.
• Canada: The cooperative Modo proves that shared vehicles work outside cities too. Its network now includes 25 communities in British Columbia. As a co-op, members are also co-owners – reinforcing both responsibility and a sense of belonging.

What all these models have in common: They rely on human connection. Not anonymous corporations, but shared local responsibility.

The post 3 Cars, 22 Families: Rural Carsharing That Works appeared first on TheBetter.news.