{"id":39287,"date":"2026-06-03T19:20:35","date_gmt":"2026-06-03T17:20:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/?p=39287"},"modified":"2026-06-03T19:22:11","modified_gmt":"2026-06-03T17:22:11","slug":"slovakias-position-in-climate-and-carbon-literacy-in-the-eu","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/2026\/06\/03\/slovakias-position-in-climate-and-carbon-literacy-in-the-eu\/","title":{"rendered":"Slovakia's position in climate and carbon literacy in the EU"},"content":{"rendered":"

This report uses\u00a0climate literacy<\/strong>\u00a0as the ability to understand the causes, consequences and solutions of climate change and\u00a0carbon literacy<\/strong>\u00a0as the ability to link everyday decisions to greenhouse gas emissions and to act to reduce emissions. As the EU does not yet have one official, harmonised climate or carbon literacy index for all Member States, the report is working with\u00a0proxy profile<\/strong>\u00a0based on official comparable data: the EIB direct knowledge test, risk perception, experience with extreme weather, household action capacity and support for adaptation investments. This is in line with the EIB measuring knowledge with a separate test and the European Commission continuing to develop a broader approach to monitoring \u201elearning for sustainability\u201c.<\/p>\n

Main conclusion:<\/strong>\u00a0Slovakia is in the EU\u00a0below average in direct knowledge and actionability<\/strong>, but\u00a0above average in experienced climate exposure<\/strong>\u00a0a\u00a0slightly above average in support of investing in adaptation<\/strong>. In other words: Slovakia is not a "low-problem" country; on the contrary, it feels climate risks significantly, but the practical orientation on what exactly to do and what public tools are available is weaker.<\/p>\n

In the EIB direct knowledge test, Slovakia achieved\u00a06,16\/10<\/strong>, the EU average was\u00a06,37\/10<\/strong>. Slovakia therefore belongs more to\u00a0lower third to lower middle<\/strong>\u00a0EU in a direct knowledge profile. At the same time, however,\u00a087 %<\/strong>\u00a0of respondents in Slovakia reported that they had been directly affected by at least one extreme weather event in the last five years, compared to\u00a080 %<\/strong>\u00a0in the EU;\u00a063 %<\/strong>\u00a0reported the impact of heat waves or heat waves, versus\u00a055 %<\/strong>\u00a0in the EU; and\u00a023 %<\/strong>\u00a0reported health problems due to extreme weather, compared to\u00a020 %<\/strong>\u00a0in the EU.<\/p>\n

Slovakia is weaker especially in practical carbon literacy: only\u00a029 %<\/strong>\u00a0of respondents knew that better insulation of buildings helps mitigate climate change; only\u00a013 %<\/strong>\u00a0knew about the climate benefits of lower speed limits; and only\u00a034 %<\/strong>\u00a0knew about public subsidies or financial incentives to adapt households to rising temperatures, with the EU average\u00a040 %<\/strong>. Only\u00a066 %<\/strong>\u00a0feel informed about what they can do personally, compared to the EU average\u00a071 %<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

This combination is politically important: Slovakia has\u00a0lower adaptation priority<\/strong>\u00a0than the EU (35 %<\/strong>\u00a0vs.\u00a050 %<\/strong>\u00a0identifies adaptation as a priority), but at the same time\u00a0above average supports investing today to avoid higher costs tomorrow<\/strong>\u00a0(88 %<\/strong>\u00a0vs.\u00a085 %<\/strong>) and sees adaptation investments as an economic opportunity (87 %<\/strong>\u00a0vs.\u00a086 %<\/strong>). This suggests that a communicatively effective framework is not an \u201eabstract climate\u201c, but\u00a0protecting health, housing, energy bills and the local economy<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Concepts and methodology<\/h5>\n

I use two operational definitions in this report.\u00a0Climate literacy<\/strong>\u00a0means that individuals understand what climate change is, what causes it, what its consequences are, and what policies or personal choices matter.\u00a0Carbon literacy<\/strong>\u00a0is narrower: it is the ability to understand one\u2019s own carbon footprint, to recognise the emissions consequences of everyday choices in housing, transport, consumption and food, and to translate this understanding into behaviour. Given the absence of a single official pan-European index, it is therefore appropriate to assess countries through a combination of direct tests of knowledge and proxy indicators of actionability, risk perception and institutional support. This is the analytical framework of this report; its need is supported by the fact that the EIB measures knowledge with a separate test and the European Commission is still building a broader monitoring of learning for sustainability.<\/p>\n

The core data is based on two official EIB surveys.\u00a0Sixth edition of the EIB Climate Survey<\/strong>\u00a0measures knowledge in three areas \u2014 definitions and causes, consequences, and solutions \u2014 using\u00a012 questions<\/strong>\u00a0and composes them into a score\u00a00 to 10<\/strong>; covers more than\u00a030,000 respondents in 35 countries<\/strong>, including the EU-27.\u00a0Seventh edition of the EIB Climate Survey 2024<\/strong>\u00a0about the adaptation was implemented\u00a0August 6 to 23, 2024<\/strong>, included\u00a024 148<\/strong>\u00a0respondents, all\u00a027 EU Member States<\/strong>\u00a0and the USA; national samples were representative of the population 15+ and the typical sampling error for a sample of around 1,000 respondents is approximately\u00a0\u00b13.1 pp.<\/strong>, with a sample of around 500 approximately\u00a0\u00b14.5 pp.<\/strong><\/p>\n

For political and educational use, I propose an indicator framework in five blocks: knowledge<\/strong>\u00a0(overall score, causes, consequences, solutions, carbon footprint);\u00a0risk and salience<\/strong> (extreme weather, health, property, adaptation priority); actionability<\/strong>\u00a0(awareness, knowledge of subsidy instruments, ability to reduce carbon footprint);\u00a0behavior and policy support<\/strong>\u00a0(support for investments, perception of economic benefits, public acceptance of measures); and\u00a0educational\/institutional prerequisites<\/strong>\u00a0(curriculum, teacher training, GreenComp, PISA, Eurostat, Eurobarometer). The European Commission already recommends that all learners have access to quality education on sustainability, climate and biodiversity, and the GreenComp framework distinguishes four areas of competence: values, complexity, imagining the future and action.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Results<\/h5>\n

Slovakia has in the EU\u00a0mixed profile<\/strong>. On the axis "\u201eknowledge and practical solutions<\/strong>\u201c" is below average: overall score\u00a06,16\/10<\/strong>\u00a0vs.\u00a06,37\/10<\/strong>, causes\u00a06,97\/10<\/strong>\u00a0vs.\u00a07,21\/10<\/strong>, consequences\u00a07,35\/10<\/strong>\u00a0vs.\u00a07,65\/10<\/strong>\u00a0and solutions\u00a04,16\/10<\/strong>\u00a0vs.\u00a04,25\/10<\/strong>. On the axis "\u201erisk and personal experience<\/strong>\u201c" is above average: at least one extreme event\u00a087 %<\/strong>\u00a0vs.\u00a080 %<\/strong>, heat\u00a063 %<\/strong>\u00a0vs.\u00a055 %<\/strong>, thunderstorms\/hail\u00a045 %<\/strong>\u00a0vs.\u00a034 %<\/strong>, health problems\u00a023 %<\/strong>\u00a0vs.\u00a020 %<\/strong>. On the axis "\u201eactionability and information environment<\/strong>\u201c" is below average again: awareness of what to do\u00a066 %<\/strong>\u00a0vs.\u00a071 %<\/strong>, knowledge of subsidies\u00a034 %<\/strong>\u00a0vs.\u00a040 %<\/strong>. On the axis "\u201epragmatic support for measures<\/strong>\u201c"Slovakia is rather above average: adaptation creates jobs and supports the local economy according to\u00a087 %<\/strong>\u00a0respondents vs.\u00a086 %<\/strong>\u00a0in the EU, and\u00a088 %<\/strong>\u00a0agrees that it is necessary to invest today to avoid higher future costs, vs.\u00a085 %<\/strong>\u00a0in the EU.<\/p>\n

The best scores in the EIB knowledge test were\u00a0Finland (7.22)<\/strong>,\u00a0Luxembourg (7.19)<\/strong>,\u00a0Sweden (6.96)<\/strong>,\u00a0Portugal (6.90)<\/strong>\u00a0a\u00a0Croatia (6.78)<\/strong>. At the opposite end were\u00a0Cyprus (5.57)<\/strong>,\u00a0Romania (5.77)<\/strong>,\u00a0Malta (5.84)<\/strong>,\u00a0Poland (5.87)<\/strong>\u00a0a\u00a0Latvia (5.92)<\/strong>. Slovakia with\u00a06,16<\/strong>\u00a0falls below average and according to available values approximately within\u00a0lower third to lower middle<\/strong>\u00a0EU. I was unable to reliably verify the value for Ireland in the captured outputs, so I will continue to mark it as\u00a0n\/a<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The following comparison matrix synthesizes highly reliable official data from national websites\u00a0EIB Climate Survey 2024<\/strong>\u00a0about knowledge and\u00a0EIB Climate Survey 2024 \u2013 adaptation<\/strong>\u00a0on risks, awareness and attitudes. Abbreviations:\u00a0K<\/strong>\u00a0= knowledge score 0\u201310;\u00a0AP<\/strong>\u00a0= adaptation is a priority;\u00a0JOB<\/strong>\u00a0= adaptation creates jobs\/local economy;\u00a0INV<\/strong>\u00a0= you need to invest now;\u00a0EXT<\/strong>\u00a0= at least one extreme event in 5 years;\u00a0HEAT<\/strong>\u00a0= impact of heat;\u00a0STORM<\/strong>\u00a0= storm\/hail impact;\u00a0HP<\/strong>\u00a0= health problems from extreme weather;\u00a0CAR<\/strong>\u00a0= fear of damage to house\/car;\u00a0INF<\/strong>\u00a0= feels informed about what to do;\u00a0AID<\/strong>\u00a0= knows about public subsidies;\u00a0COL<\/strong>\u00a0= rising cost of living among top challenges.<\/p>\n

\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
State<\/th>\nK<\/th>\nAP<\/th>\nJOB<\/th>\nINV<\/th>\nEXT<\/th>\nHEAT<\/th>\nSTORM<\/th>\nHP<\/th>\nCAR<\/th>\nINF<\/th>\nAID<\/th>\nCOL<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
AT<\/td>\n6.49<\/td>\n37<\/td>\n79<\/td>\n79<\/td>\n73<\/td>\n49<\/td>\n38<\/td>\n15<\/td>\n48<\/td>\n82<\/td>\n41<\/td>\n56<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
BE<\/td>\n6.49<\/td>\n51<\/td>\n85<\/td>\n81<\/td>\n72<\/td>\n40<\/td>\n31<\/td>\n18<\/td>\n51<\/td>\n63<\/td>\n43<\/td>\n57<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
BG<\/td>\n6.10<\/td>\n50<\/td>\n88<\/td>\n89<\/td>\n94<\/td>\n62<\/td>\n41<\/td>\n23<\/td>\n69<\/td>\n71<\/td>\n45<\/td>\n53<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
HR<\/td>\n6.78<\/td>\n40<\/td>\n89<\/td>\n90<\/td>\n91<\/td>\n65<\/td>\n49<\/td>\n23<\/td>\n79<\/td>\n78<\/td>\n42<\/td>\n76<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
CY<\/td>\n5.57<\/td>\n64<\/td>\n96<\/td>\n93<\/td>\n99<\/td>\n49<\/td>\n30<\/td>\n26<\/td>\n92<\/td>\n86<\/td>\n79<\/td>\n39<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
CZ<\/td>\n6.12<\/td>\n30<\/td>\n82<\/td>\n83<\/td>\n81<\/td>\n51<\/td>\n38<\/td>\n23<\/td>\n44<\/td>\n62<\/td>\n40<\/td>\n56<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DE<\/td>\n6.49<\/td>\n40<\/td>\n78<\/td>\n77<\/td>\n71<\/td>\n48<\/td>\n31<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n49<\/td>\n79<\/td>\n33<\/td>\n47<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DK<\/td>\n6.76<\/td>\n68<\/td>\n88<\/td>\n88<\/td>\n65<\/td>\n25<\/td>\n28<\/td>\n12<\/td>\n42<\/td>\n69<\/td>\n37<\/td>\n40<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
EE<\/td>\n6.46<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n77<\/td>\n79<\/td>\n73<\/td>\n39<\/td>\n36<\/td>\n18<\/td>\n42<\/td>\n72<\/td>\n34<\/td>\n71<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
EL<\/td>\n6.39<\/td>\n60<\/td>\n92<\/td>\n90<\/td>\n94<\/td>\n61<\/td>\n32<\/td>\n24<\/td>\n86<\/td>\n72<\/td>\n68<\/td>\n64<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
EC<\/td>\n6.37<\/td>\n66<\/td>\n89<\/td>\n88<\/td>\n89<\/td>\n73<\/td>\n26<\/td>\n27<\/td>\n70<\/td>\n58<\/td>\n27<\/td>\n56<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
FI<\/td>\n7.22<\/td>\n23<\/td>\n82<\/td>\n83<\/td>\n61<\/td>\n34<\/td>\n19<\/td>\n12<\/td>\n25<\/td>\n70<\/td>\n38<\/td>\n62<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
FR<\/td>\n6.42<\/td>\n56<\/td>\n90<\/td>\n88<\/td>\n80<\/td>\n56<\/td>\n31<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n54<\/td>\n63<\/td>\n44<\/td>\n57<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
HU<\/td>\n6.06<\/td>\n46<\/td>\n87<\/td>\n86<\/td>\n90<\/td>\n67<\/td>\n45<\/td>\n30<\/td>\n70<\/td>\n70<\/td>\n43<\/td>\n61<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
IE<\/td>\nn\/a<\/td>\n55<\/td>\n90<\/td>\n90<\/td>\n69<\/td>\n26<\/td>\n40<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n53<\/td>\n75<\/td>\n41<\/td>\n79<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
IT<\/td>\n6.41<\/td>\n67<\/td>\n91<\/td>\n91<\/td>\n89<\/td>\n61<\/td>\n37<\/td>\n23<\/td>\n76<\/td>\n75<\/td>\n49<\/td>\n46<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
LT<\/td>\n6.45<\/td>\n28<\/td>\n88<\/td>\n87<\/td>\n85<\/td>\n49<\/td>\n59<\/td>\n19<\/td>\n60<\/td>\n62<\/td>\n28<\/td>\n55<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
LU<\/td>\n7.19<\/td>\n47<\/td>\n83<\/td>\n82<\/td>\n79<\/td>\n47<\/td>\n42<\/td>\n14<\/td>\n40<\/td>\n74<\/td>\n47<\/td>\n71<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
LV<\/td>\n5.92<\/td>\n23<\/td>\n72<\/td>\n77<\/td>\n80<\/td>\n34<\/td>\n49<\/td>\n21<\/td>\n59<\/td>\n52<\/td>\n29<\/td>\n48<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
MT<\/td>\n5.84<\/td>\n77<\/td>\n97<\/td>\n97<\/td>\n97<\/td>\n53<\/td>\n28<\/td>\n29<\/td>\n87<\/td>\n91<\/td>\n82<\/td>\n41<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
NL<\/td>\n6.46<\/td>\n49<\/td>\n86<\/td>\n77<\/td>\n59<\/td>\n34<\/td>\n29<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n37<\/td>\n75<\/td>\n48<\/td>\n61<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
PL<\/td>\n5.87<\/td>\n25<\/td>\n83<\/td>\n77<\/td>\n83<\/td>\n56<\/td>\n47<\/td>\n17<\/td>\n50<\/td>\n70<\/td>\n40<\/td>\n53<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
PT<\/td>\n6.90<\/td>\n66<\/td>\n95<\/td>\n95<\/td>\n86<\/td>\n63<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n24<\/td>\n67<\/td>\n77<\/td>\n47<\/td>\n73<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
RO<\/td>\n5.77<\/td>\n59<\/td>\n92<\/td>\n90<\/td>\n93<\/td>\n71<\/td>\n44<\/td>\n29<\/td>\n70<\/td>\n81<\/td>\n39<\/td>\n72<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
SE<\/td>\n6.96<\/td>\n52<\/td>\n84<\/td>\n85<\/td>\n64<\/td>\n29<\/td>\n22<\/td>\n12<\/td>\n23<\/td>\n70<\/td>\n26<\/td>\n45<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
SI<\/td>\n6.44<\/td>\n43<\/td>\n85<\/td>\n89<\/td>\n89<\/td>\n46<\/td>\n62<\/td>\n17<\/td>\n68<\/td>\n78<\/td>\n52<\/td>\n61<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
EN<\/td>\n6.16<\/td>\n35<\/td>\n87<\/td>\n88<\/td>\n87<\/td>\n63<\/td>\n45<\/td>\n23<\/td>\n57<\/td>\n66<\/td>\n34<\/td>\n63<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

According to this matrix, Slovakia is a country in the EU with\u00a0higher than average exposure<\/strong>\u00a0a\u00a0below average practical readiness<\/strong>. If we focus on carbon literacy in the narrow sense, Slovakia lags behind especially in areas with high political relevance and direct impact on households: building insulation, energy efficiency, transport choices, and orientation in available support.<\/p>\n

The following profile summarises Slovakia against the EU average on an extended set of indicators. The source is the same official EIB outputs; the first three knowledge sub-indexes are directly from the Slovak national page of the sixth edition.<\/p>\n

\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Indicator<\/th>\nSlovakia<\/th>\nEU average<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Total knowledge score 0\u201310<\/td>\n6.16<\/td>\n6.37<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Cause subindex 0\u201310<\/td>\n6.97<\/td>\n7.21<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Subindex consequences 0\u201310<\/td>\n7.35<\/td>\n7.65<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Solution subindex 0\u201310<\/td>\n4.16<\/td>\n4.25<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Correct definition of climate change %<\/td>\n69<\/td>\n71<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Recognition of human causes %<\/td>\n70<\/td>\n74<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Correct identification of US\/China\/India as top % issuers<\/td>\n71<\/td>\n72<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Adaptation is a priority for %<\/td>\n35<\/td>\n50<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Adaptation creates jobs\/local economy %<\/td>\n87<\/td>\n86<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
You need to invest today %<\/td>\n88<\/td>\n85<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
At least one extreme event in 5 years %<\/td>\n87<\/td>\n80<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Impact of heat %<\/td>\n63<\/td>\n55<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Storm\/hail impact %<\/td>\n45<\/td>\n34<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Health problems from extreme weather %<\/td>\n23<\/td>\n20<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fear of damage to house\/car %<\/td>\n57<\/td>\n58<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Feels informed about what to do %<\/td>\n66<\/td>\n71<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Knows public subsidies\/tools %<\/td>\n34<\/td>\n40<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Rising cost of living among top challenges %<\/td>\n63<\/td>\n55<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Slovakia's strength is not abstract "climate enthusiasm", but rather\u00a0pragmatic openness to protective investments<\/strong>, when linked to damage prevention and economic benefits. Support for the statement that it is necessary to invest today to avoid higher costs tomorrow is high in Slovakia, as is the belief that adaptation infrastructure can support the local economy and jobs. This is crucial for public policy: in Slovakia, it is probably more effective to frame climate measures as\u00a0protection against damage and saving future costs<\/strong>, not as a moral abstraction.<\/p>\n

The weak point is\u00a0actionability based on knowledge of solutions<\/strong>. Slovak respondents understand climate significantly more than the immediate weather and less than concrete solutions. The knowledge gap is largest in measures that are key to decarbonizing households in the EU: building renovation, transportation habits and other everyday decisions. Moreover, only a third of respondents know about the available public support tools. This is the core of the problem of carbon literacy in Slovakia: not the absence of any awareness about climate, but\u00a0weaker translation of knowledge into concrete household decision-making<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The difference between Slovakia and parts of northwestern Europe is explained by at least three factors. First,\u00a0higher exposure<\/strong>: According to the EIB, Slovakia is among the countries where respondents more often report the impacts of extreme weather, especially heat waves and storms. Secondly,\u00a0cost of living agenda<\/strong>: in Slovakia, price increases are a more prominent top topic than in the EU average, which may reduce political and media space for climate issues as a separate priority. Third,\u00a0weaker information architecture for households<\/strong>, which is seen in lower awareness and poorer knowledge of supports. The second and third factors are inferences from survey data, not directly measured causal effects.<\/p>\n

From a European perspective, a spatial pattern is also clear:\u00a0Southern and Eastern Europe<\/strong>\u00a0shows higher reported exposure, more frequent health consequences and greater concern for property, while\u00a0northern Europe<\/strong>\u00a0has generally lower reported exposure and at the same time a better knowledge score. Slovakia is in this sense a \u201ehybrid\u201c: in terms of impacts it is closer to the more exposed south and east, but in terms of knowledge it does not match the north and the best western performers.<\/p>\n

Slovakia should do three things in the short term. First, introduce\u00a0a unified, "one-stop-shop" communication layer<\/strong>\u00a0for households: a simple explanation of what climate change means for heating, housing, health and insurance claims, plus where and how to get support for insulation, shading, passive cooling and energy savings. The data shows that this is where the gap between risk and action lies. Second, target communication at\u00a0practical carbon choices<\/strong>: buildings, heating, transport, consumption. Third, consistently connect the topic with\u00a0cost of living<\/strong>\u00a0and household resilience, because this framework is the most politically resonant in Slovakia.<\/p>\n

In education, Slovakia should move from one-off projects to\u00a0curricular mainstreaming<\/strong>. The European Commission already recommends that all learners have access to quality sustainability and climate education, and GreenComp provides a practical framework of four competence areas. For Slovakia, this means: embedding climate and carbon literacy in primary and secondary education, linking it to STEM, civics, geography and vocational education, while systematically preparing teachers. Without teacher support, the gap between \u201eknowing about climate\u201c and \u201eknowing how to act\u201c will not be reduced.<\/p>\n

In the medium term, I recommend creating\u00a0National Climate and Carbon Literacy Panel<\/strong>, repeated at least once a year and methodologically linked to the EIB, Eurobarometer and OECD\/PISA. The state would thus obtain hard data on which population groups do not understand the solutions, where the problem lies in information and where in the real ability to act. This panel should also include indicators for schools and teachers, so that it is possible to link public opinion, education and household results. The OECD already has a PISA 2022 database and the European Commission is building a learning for sustainability monitoring; Slovakia should methodologically connect to these frameworks.<\/p>\n

In the long term, it is appropriate to combine climate and carbon literacy with\u00a0energy literacy<\/strong>\u00a0and local participation. This means expanding advisory services for households, municipalities and schools; involving local governments in local adaptation plans; and creating participatory forums in which climate action is explained through local floods, heat waves, insurance, schools and public spaces. According to the EIB\u2019s findings, Slovakia has a relatively good basis for accepting investments in adaptation; it lacks in particular a permanent infrastructure for explanation and everyday decision-making.<\/p>\n

Open questions and main sources<\/h5>\n

This version is\u00a0rigorous policy brief<\/strong>, not a full technical annex. Two limitations are important. First, I was unable to reliably verify in the captured official outputs\u00a0Irish overall knowledge score<\/strong>, therefore it is marked as n\/a. Second, I use\u00a0diagnostic profile<\/strong>, not a single aggregate composite index, because to create a fully harmonised 15+ indicator index it would be necessary to add Eurobarometer country tables, OECD\/PISA, Eurostat and more detailed curriculum data from Eurydice and national ministries. The European Commission itself states that monitoring learning for sustainability is being developed, and the OECD holds the PISA 2022 database as a primary source for further expanding the analysis.<\/p>\n

How\u00a0the most relevant academic and political references<\/strong>\u00a0For another technical annex I recommend:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • EIB Climate Survey 2024 \u2014 knowledge edition<\/strong>\u00a0and national sites of EU countries that provide a direct knowledge test 0\u201310 and its sub-indices.<\/li>\n
  • EIB Climate Survey 2024 \u2014 adaptation report<\/strong>, which offers pan-European country rankings for risk perception, experience with extreme weather, awareness and policy support.<\/li>\n
  • European Education Area \u2014 Learning for the green transition and sustainable development<\/strong>, including Council Recommendation 2022 and GreenComp.<\/li>\n
  • OECD PISA 2022 Results<\/strong>\u00a0a\u00a0PISA 2022 Database<\/strong>\u00a0as a primary source for the school knowledge component and expansion of the annex to include educational proxy indicators.<\/li>\n
  • Eurobarometer \u2014 Climate change survey page<\/strong>\u00a0as a preferred supplementary source for further replication and supplementation of communication and attitudinal indicators.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    One-sentence conclusion:<\/strong> Slovakia is not among the countries with the weakest climate sensitivity in the EU \u2014 on the contrary, it feels climate risks strongly \u2014 but it lags behind in transforming these experiences into widespread, practical carbon literacy and everyday actionability.\u00a0 JRi&CO2AI\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    T\u00e1to spr\u00e1va pou\u017e\u00edva\u00a0klimatick\u00fa gramotnos\u0165\u00a0ako schopnos\u0165 rozumie\u0165 pr\u00ed\u010din\u00e1m, d\u00f4sledkom a rie\u0161eniam klimatickej zmeny a\u00a0uhl\u00edkov\u00fa gramotnos\u0165\u00a0ako schopnos\u0165 prepoji\u0165 ka\u017edodenn\u00e9 rozhodnutia s emisiami sklen\u00edkov\u00fdch plynov a vedie\u0165 kona\u0165 tak, aby sa emisie zni\u017eovali. Ke\u010f\u017ee E\u00da<\/p>","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39287","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-klimaticka-zmena","category-uhlikova_gramotnost"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39287","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39287"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39287\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39291,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39287\/revisions\/39291"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39287"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39287"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39287"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}