Living the twin transition: how Europe’s green and digital transformations risk leaving people behind

Article prepared by Sofia Strid, Anna Davidsson, Sebastian Svenberg, Martin Hultman, University of Gothenburg 

Across Europe, we are told that two major transformations, the green transition and the digital transition, will define our future. 

One promises to cut emissions and protect the planet; the other aims for new technological possibilities and economic growth. Together, they are often called the twin transition. 

On paper, the twin transition sounds like a win-win: cleaner air, smarter tools, more efficient industries, new jobs, and strong economies. But when you zoom in on the lives of ordinary people, the picture becomes more complicated. If these transitions are not carefully designed, they may deepen the very inequalities Europe hopes to solve. 

That is the challenge at the heart of the EU-funded ST4TE project, which examines how the green and digital transitions interact with social and economic inequalities, and how they might be steered in a fairer direction. As part of this effort, researchers conducted 402 narrative interviews across nine European countries in 2025. Participants described, in very concrete terms, how the transitions enter their daily lives, shape their choices, and sometimes reinforce old divides. 

What emerges is not a single story of progress, but a mosaic of experiences, hopeful, anxious, frustrated, and creative. The voices collected across Europe show why the twin transition must be about more than technology or carbon targets. It must also be about justice. 

Two transitions, unequal starting lines 

The first major insight from the interviews is simple but profound: people do not begin these transitions from the same place. Income, education, age, skill levels, geography, disability, health, gender, and migration status all influence how much time, money, energy, and knowledge individuals can invest in changing their lifestyles. 

For many low-income households, switching to greener technologies (like electric cars, home insulation, heat pumps, or solar panels) is financially out of reach. For some, who are doing everything they can to lower their emissions and catching the possibilities of digital tools, it is experienced as if the policies work against them. For others, digital participation is limited by the cost of devices, poor internet access, or a lack of digital skills.  

In other words, those who could benefit most from the social and economic opportunities of the twin transition often face the steepest barriers to joining it. 

Green feels optional, digital feels unavoidable 

Another striking pattern is that people perceive the two transitions very differently.  

The green transition feels voluntary, something rooted in personal values, community norms, or a desire to do the right thing. People cycle to work, reduce meat consumption, or try to travel by train because they believe in sustainability. 

But these choices rarely feel supported by the existing system. Long-distance train travel was described as an act requiring enormous planning and money. Cyclists spoke about unsafe roads. Those committed to minimal living said they felt like outsiders in a high-emission society. Instead of being rewarded for low-carbon lifestyles, lack of supportive policy and infrastructure make them vulnerable. 

The digital transition, in contrast, feels compulsory. Digital tools govern everything from banking and healthcare to education and work. While some groups, like visually impaired people, described great potential benefits from digital innovation, others struggled with the pace of change. Older adults, workers in precarious positions, and people lacking tech skills often feel pressured, stressed, or excluded. 

Perhaps most troubling, many interviewees expressed a growing sense of loss of control over digital lives, especially groups already vulnerable to discrimination such as immigrants, LGBTQIA+ individuals, and political activists. Being forced to rely on tools provided by global tech monopolies left many feeling exposed or surveilled. 

When digital helps green, and when it doesn’t 

The study uncovered pockets where digital innovation genuinely helps advance sustainability. Digital marketplaces for second-hand clothes or refurbished electronics can boost circular economies. Apps that help reduce food waste or organise ride-sharing were also welcomed. 

But such synergies remain the exception rather than the rule. Many participants simply did not experience the green and digital transitions as connected. Instead, they saw rising digital consumption (e.g. streaming services, cloud storage, AI tools) as energy-hungry and largely unregulated. Their hesitation reflects a broader unease about how green the digital revolution really is. 

A growing rural–urban divide 

One of the clearest geographic inequalities appears in the energy transition. Rural residents across Europe experienced feelings of loss of landscapes, livelihoods and water bodies in the shift toward renewables. 

Wind farms in northern Europe and large solar parks in southern Europe often land in sparsely populated rural areas, yet local communities rarely see compensation or direct benefits. This produces resentment not only toward renewable infrastructure, but also toward urban populations perceived as consuming more energy while offloading the land use burden onto rural neighbours. 

Several interviews argued that a fair transition would prioritise reducing total energy use, especially in cities and by those over consuming it, rather than installing more infrastructure in rural regions without community-led decision-making. 

The hidden costs of green consumerism 

A recurring theme was frustration with the way green policies often present sustainability as a matter of private consumption: buying a new, expensive technology is framed as the main way to be green. But many people, especially young adults, retirees, and low-income households lack sufficient economic margins, making such investments impossible. 

This leads to a paradox: people who already live low-emission lifestyles often feel excluded from the official model of successful green behaviour.