Britain's "Mid-Lifers" Rise to Meet Climate Breakdown

 

A survey finds that Britain's Over-50s want tougher measures to fight the climate crisis even if it results in higher costs.

A survey of more than 500 people aged 50 and over found that almost two-thirds want ministers to move faster on climate initiatives, regardless of whether it meant products and services would be more expensive over time, or more difficult to access.

Stuart Lewis, the founder of Rest Less, which conducted the study, said: “Our research shows that midlifers feel a huge sense of responsibility for the health of the planet and their role in reducing climate change.”

Rest Less, a website that supports and provides advice to older people, also found that only a minority of older people said they were unconcerned about the climate crisis, challenging assumptions about a generational divide on environmental issues.

More than two in three people polled said they had bought fewer clothes to cut down on waste in recent years, while half reduced their vehicle use and consumed less meat and dairy. One in five said they only bought seasonal food, while half said they had reduced home energy use.

The government is aiming to upgrade as many homes as possible to an average energy efficiency rating of C by 2035. But the average cost of improvements – which could mean insulating water tanks and lofts, or installing solar panels and heat pumps – can be much higher for older people because they tend to own older and less energy efficient homes.

I've been greening my house for several years. We do get hot spells but rarely do they last more than three or four days and overnight temperatures coupled with casement windows are usually enough to keep the place liveable. So no air-con needed. We don't have the sort of mass transit enjoyed in urban areas but I keep my driving to a minimum, about 150 kms. per month. I don't buy the "latest and greatest" of anything, keeping the old stuff going just as long as possible. Air travel? I flew to Ontario in 2008 for my dad's funeral. Even the multi-week motorcycle trips to the southern US or Mexico are now just fond memories. Far from perfect but I do make the effort.

When I get the yearn to travel I sometimes pull out my collection of photographs from the 60s and 70s to remind me of what the places I used to visit looked like back then. From there it's an easy matter to Google what they've come to look like today. That's usually enough to conjure up a big "no thanks. I'll pass."  It was such a different world back then when humanity was 3 to 3.5 billion tops. Today we're closing in on 8 billion and how we've grown both in longevity and in consumption. The places I came to love often are no more. Why go back to remind myself of that?  I consider myself so fortunate to have the memories I captured back when and I think I'd like to hold on to them for a while longer.


Comments

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. IMHO, one way to reduce our carbon footprint would be to start repairing stuff (as opposed to just throwing it all out and buying a replacement when something minor breaks). I have shoes I have re-soled, furniture I have repaired, drove my van for about 17 years, etc. So many things go to the landfill instead of being fixed and reused.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You're right on the money, Mike. It's part of what is now called the "circular economy," a modern version of the earlier "steady state" economy, that production should be geared to products that are durable, repairable and, most importantly, upgradeable.

    A major appliance today is good for 5 to 7 years and then it's off to the dump. A few years ago the Merkel government commissioned a study that found no reason the appliances we buy shouldn't last 15 or more years.

    The focus on growth won't be on quantity but quality and scarce resources will be allocated to manufacturers according to the utility of the products they design.

    Our obsession with perpetual growth is a racket. Even Adam Smith, in his 1776 book, "The Wealth of Nations," foresaw that growth would have a useful life of about 200 years. He made that calculation before the introduction of fossil fuels and the Industrial Revolution. Smith, the Gandhi of commercialism, wrote that book before the Earth's human population first reached 1 billion.

    My dad introduced his sons to the legendary Dacks shoes. They were made to the highest standards and were almost infinitely refurbishable. You would just return them to the store and they would be sent out for rebuilding - heels, soles and uppers. A pair, properly cared for, would easily last a lifetime.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Navigating the Minefield of Short-Termism

The Gun We Point at Our Own Heads

The Cognoscenti Syndrome