I wouldn’t have believed this if I hadn’t read it for myself. This is an actual study and press release from the University of York. I’m surprised they didn’t issue this press release IN ALL UPPER CASE. Those darn whippersnappers.
New rules of engagement for older people and climate change
A new study by researchers in the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) at the University of York calls for better engagement of older people on climate change issues.
The report, prepared in partnership with the Community Service Volunteers’ Retired and Senior Volunteer Programme (RSVP), urges the scrapping of stereotypes which suggest that older people are incapable of engagement, passive or disinterested in climate change.
Instead, the research team recommends new approaches to engage older people, which promote direct interaction and the use of trusted agents that are sensitive to the personal circumstances older people face. The report sets out a ten-point plan to engage older people more effectively on climate change issues and greener living.
Recent evidence from the older age sector highlight the inadequacies of current methods of information provision and community engagement on climate change
The report claims that a combination of climate change and an ageing population will have wide ranging socio-economic and environmental impacts. It acknowledges that older people may be physically, financially and emotionally less able to cope with the effects of climate-related weather events.
Lead author Dr Gary Haq, a human ecologist at SEI, said: “The engagement and participation of older people in climate change issues are important as older people can be seen as potential contributors to, and casualties of, climate change as well as potential campaigners to tackle the problem.”
‘Baby boomers’ (aged 50-64) currently have the highest carbon footprint in the UK compared with other age groups. They represent the first generation of the consumer society entering old age. As they will move to older groups they will replace low carbon footprint habits and values with relatively high consumption.
Dr Haq said: “Recent evidence from the older age sector highlight the inadequacies of current methods of information provision and community engagement on climate change. It is critical to implementing policies to tackle climate change and to address the needs of an ageing population.”
Dave Brown, co-author and member of RSVP, said: “While older people are concerned about climate change, they do not feel they will be directly affected. Nor do they feel they can personally take action to stop it. The older generation represent a missing voice and a missed opportunity.”
Notes to editors:
- The Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) is a global science policy research institute headquartered in Stockholm and with its UK office based in the Environment Department at the University of York. Its mission is to bridge the gap between science and policy to achieve change for a sustainable future.
- More about the University of York’s Environment Department can be found on www.york.ac.uk/environment/
- According to the Government’s Actuary Department, by 2050 people aged over 50 will represent 30 per cent of the UK population compared to 2006.
- SEI’s updated calculations show that baby boomers (aged 50-64) have one of the highest carbon footprints (13.5 tonnes/CO2) in the UK compared other age groups Seniors (aged 65-70) have a carbon footprint of 12. 5 tonnes/CO2 while Elders (aged 70+) have a footprint of equal to the UK average of 12 tonnes.
- As the ‘baby boomers’ move into the older groups they will replace low carbon footprint habits and values with relatively high consumption habits. This “replacement effect” is crucially important and identifies the need for a much clearer targeted effort on climate change and consumption aimed at this demographic group.
- The ten-point plan for engagement of older people in climate change issues:
-
- Abandon old stereotypes
- Get to know your target audience
- Use trusted brands
- Use peer to peer communication
- Use positive messages
- Use the right “frames”
- Show real life examples
- Develop an inclusive dialogue
- Maximise participation
- Ensure the setting is right for change
- The full report can be found on the SEI web site: www.sei-international.org
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dad just left to return to Florida on Tuesday last. I had the pleasure of recording him talking to some of my grand kids about things in his past. Dad was born in 1917. They were very amazed at some of the things he talked about. How cold it was in the early 20’s and how hot it was during the dust bowl years of the 30’s. How even in the city of Memphis Tn. most homes didn’t have “indoor plumbing”. How it was being in the merchant marine during WWII. How cold it was in the 50’s 60’s and 70’s. All of the good things like how when we lived in Mississippi in the 50’s and they first run electrical service to that area. How the first telephones were installed. We had the first television in the area and everyone came over on Saturday nights to watch the Saturday night fights and Red Skelton. Setting up blocks and boards like the movie house in town. home maid popcorn on the stove top made with real popcorn before microwaves. How the first running water in the house was a pitcher pump in the kitchen and before that we had to walk down the hill and draw water from the old well. Then the real pump in the shed in the back yard and the first indoor bathroom. Oh how that was better than the trip around the kitchen garden to the out house on the side of the hill with the single hole. Yep Dad doesn’t qualify as one of Dr. Quak’s old codgers he is just to old at 93/ Probably burns to much carbon with all the conveniences he had most of his life. A couple of years ago Dad decided his wrist was getting weak and changed from his 44 magnum to a 38 special. I do qualify as an old codger at 60 and have come to appreciate one of Dad’s favorite sayings. “Don’t pick a fight with an old man he will just ……….” Which meant that the ending was usually very loud and abrupt. I find that as I grow older I have realized that after living a rather active lifestyle Military, hard work, sever life threatening illness, severe injuries, alterations and what have you, that I just am no longer inclined to put up with the drivel that comes from these folks that all seem to know better than I how I should live. My suggestion to Dr. Quak would be to leave me alone and many another old codger. You just never know about those old men. They may not be inclined to be very patient.
By the way Dad while here said with out any hesitation and very bluntly that this CAGW thing was crap and scam. I agree. Just a few thoughts from an old codger listening to his Dad who is to old to be an old codger by Dr. Quak’s definition.
Bill Derryberry
Oops Dad was born in March of 17. The good Dr. Quak would probably not relish an engagement with Dad. Dad will only put up with so much and it gets less and less as the days pass. God love him.
Bill Derryberry
The report, prepared in partnership with the Community Service Volunteers’ Retired and Senior Volunteer Programme (RSVP), urges the scrapping of stereotypes which suggest that older people are incapable of engagement, passive or disinterested in climate change.
Maybe these Post Normal Midgets should scrap all of their stereotypes, including their IQ = 80 “core” memes: hey, then they wouldn’t be able to talk at all!
“The older I get, the smarter [insert your favorite, previously derided “older person”] gets.” If you continue to learn, it happens quite a lot…right, Dr. Haq?
“and the use of trusted agents ”
Let me fix that for you:
“and the use of trusted double agents”
There, now it’s more honest…
The problem they have with us “old folks” is that we REMEMBER when it was just like this last time and that nothing is really different at all. And some of us remember talking to OUR elders and having them tell us just how hot it really was in the 1930’s, and how it was much cooler since then (conversation was in the 1970’s during the “ice age” scare) but that it was also about the same coldness back in the 1800s (the person was ’80 something’ and was a kid in the late 1800s).
No amount of propaganda, no matter how craftily done, will change those facts.
So, OK, they’ve decided that they need a propaganda campaign. Maybe they ought to just try speaking the truth plainly instead.
There was a charity for codgers in the UK called ‘Age Concern’, a friend of mine needed one of their pamphlets translated into Somali for a local community. The pamphlet wasn’t well received. When he looked into it the title ‘Age Concern’ had been translated as ‘Fear of the Elderly’.
cheers David.
The problem with alarmists is there is always a good reason that when they are wrong the are right.
The fact of the matter is there is just as much realism in the younger generation.
If you have lived in the uk during August or went on holiday you would be having a miserable even worse the torrential rains in Pakistan has caused major devastation to the people living on the flood plain.
I was trying to say, this press release looks like a completely empty threat without even a viable project behind it, just like the IPCC Amazon stuff traceable back to WWF… unless I’ve missed the fine print somewhere and I did spend an hour looking…
…full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Sites are being excavated in Norfolk which show that in palaeolithic times (11000 years ago) they were occupied again and again (flint quarries mainly), before being beaten back by resurgent icefields. The warmists do not seem to be aware that we are inevitably heading for another ice age and that no amount of genetic modification will get wheat, or soya beans to germinate and grow under a mile thick ice sheet. The palaeolithic folk weren’t even farmers they just quarried flints to hunt a few animals and did up the odd root and gather some berries (holly probably). What we need to do now is not reduce CO2 emissions but go prospecting for more flint deposits for our future hunter gatherer society.
Just throwing in my 2 cents to show I haven’t gone belly up.
I tell people, I have the right to say anything I want as I get older. It gives you that priviledge to at times have a “seniors moment” or have knowledge from experiences.
People who are still working, still obtaining multiple qualifications and asking their boss for a raise do not qualify to be adressed as or receive the title of ‘Old Codger’.
“The older age sector” – jeez, why do they always have to use these stupid communistic terms? Just call ’em old folks, it’s not an offensive term!
I have to say, I find it extra dispiriting when I hear some indoctrinated older person lecturing as to the virtues of Greenism because I always think older people should be wise enough to know better. Happily most do.
These people doing this type of tax payer funded research are lacking in many things, common sense comes to mind. Maybe the lack of ever having a real job, or taking a risk in life to make ones way independently of the public trough. Knowledge of the real world, and life experience away from the brainwashing. One can only imagine the uproar of other segments in our population if ideas such as these were levelled against them. Well I refuse to grow old gracefully my 130HP harley will be my old age transport {soon} converted to a trike with an electric loading ramp for my electric mobility scooter. I have been told it is loud, but I fail to hear the loudness, it also converts petrol very efficiently into heat, noise and CO2 at around 26 MPG, but is a lot of fun. The thing that comes to mind most about these people, is their total lack of fun and sense of humour, they really take themselves too seriously. They fail to realise that life is short, and ideologies can consume a life with no achievement, and often disappointment and misery at the end. Thus I grow old disgracefully and loving it.
Thank you to everyone for your comments and criticisms. The report has obviously stimulated a lot of debate!
However, I am sorry if you have perceived this work to be “insulting”, “patronising”, “ageist”, “manipulation” or “eco-whining” – just a few of the comments I have received.
The report addresses three issues: climate change, older people and public engagement.
It is clear from many of the comments posted that despite the scientific evidence that most people here think that climate change is not influenced by human activity and that this theory is basically a load of twaddle.
I addressed this issue in a recent article in The Yorkshire Post.
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/opinion/Gary-Haq-Meltdown-cannot-hide.6066390.jp
As an environmentalist I am obviously concerned about the human impact on the environment. Even if we ignore climate change, we still have the problem of overpopulation, depleting natural resources, loss of biodiversity and general environmental degradation.
If you want to know about the state of the planet see the UN’s Global Environmental Outlook report- you can ignore the section on climate change.
http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/
There is still a need to examine our high consuming way of life and to become more efficient in the use of natural resources. This requires raising public awareness of how different lifestyle choices have different impacts. There is a general tendency that the more money we have, the more we consume and the bigger our environmental impact.
Different target audiences require different approaches. Our report addresses the approaches used to engage older demographic groups and highlights the need to develop an approach that recognises the opportunities and challenges in later life.
It is important to understand the changes of an ageing population for society in general.
Obviously, if you are sceptical about human-induced climate change then you will thnk the report is a load a rubbish – that is fine by me.
Gary Haq,
I don’t think you have through most of the relevant information. From what I’ve seen on the skeptic sites:
1. I don’t DENY climate change, but I am skeptical that that it is primarily caused by humanity nor is it catastrophic.
2. I am skeptical that the so called human impact can be measured by a single metric, CO2.
3. I see that same groups that have always manipulated markets involved with promoting the CAGW agenda, i.e. GE, BP and even Enron before they went under. It’s money and politcs as usual.
What I’ve seen on pro CAGW sites and in the media is a violent, defensive posturing, more appropriate to politics than to science.
By focusing on separate groups as if they are not inherently intelligent enough, you’re doing the same thing as when they told us the CAGW science was settled. Most people with very little effort can find enough information to make up their own mind about the issue without help from spin groups.
Thanks for responding.
Bernie: “Bottom line: Dr. Gary Haq is another example of a catastrophic over expansion of the British University system. It has created jobs for those who are essentially parasites – perhaps one of the few topics in human ecology worth examining”
Too true, most of these establishments are former ‘polytechnics’ which were to teach theoretical and practical skills for people with no academic bent, who did not have the intellect for university.
The Open University is even more so – it’s run over the internet and anyone can join up. I’ve looked at its teaching materials (I’ve friends who have taken the ocurses and others who have ‘taught’ them). It was set up to cater for people who spend their whole lives with a chip on their shoulder because they don’t have a degree. But the last thin git teaches you is to reason: there is no liberty of study or conclusion. It’s become an exercise in thought control by the liberal-left: you get your degree if you give the correct answers in course work and exams. It’s entirely skewed to political correctness, especially in the sociology fields. In short, it’s a pernicious influence.
Aberystwyth is an interesting case: it specialises in math and codes, and there is a case to be made that it’s both a cover and a recruiting ground for the intelligence services.
Some great replies on this thread. I’m a baby boomer myself (Jan 1946) and my carbon footprint is miniscule and always has been. I buy almost everything secondhand and buy food which is on its sale date and marked down. I was an environmentalist in the late 1960s – but I went to a good university where I was taught tho THINK for myself and do my own research – and I’m not swallowing any of their AGW bull.
Educated baby boomers are mostly immune to propaganda – sadly this doesn’t follow for the political class, who even at college spent more time trying to tell others what to think than on their education
Djozar ,
“By focusing on separate groups as if they are not inherently intelligent enough, you’re doing the same thing as when they told us the CAGW science was settled. Most people with very little effort can find enough information to make up their own mind about the issue without help from spin groups.”
We do not assume that this demogprahic group is “not inherently intelligent” and or cannot make up their own mind. From our experience we found that not all people in this demographic group have access to the internet, information sources or knows what action to take.
If you are questioning the validity of the message (climate change) then our approach would probably seem pointless to you.
A message for Sam and Bernie and others,
You have a right to disagree with my opinons on this issue – a bit of scepticism is healthy!
However, I think it is below the belt to get personal and undertake this character assassination with you critique of my academic record and abilities and imply that I am stupid because I do not share your opinon.
urges the scrapping of stereotypes which suggest that older people are incapable of engagement, passive or disinterested
Darn, I thought this was going to be a sex manual for us old folks. What a waste.
Gents, allow me to say that I hardly need to be told by anyone in this institution what and how to think. I have honed that skill for myself over the last six or more decades.
garyhaq says:
August 27, 2010 at 7:14 am
> If you are questioning the validity of the message (climate change) then our approach would probably seem pointless to you.<
Stick around – you have a lot to learn. It’ll be a few years before the AMO turns cold, I’m not sure what that portends for York or Sweden, but you my find yourself wishing for the good old days of global warming.
As for your issues of resource depletion and overpopulation, I strongly, strongly recommend you don’t ride climate change’s coattails. If they’re as important as you think they are, they can stand by themselves.
Gary:
Welcome to WUWT.
I read your piece in the Yorkshire Post. Your brother-in-law seems to have his head screwed on. My guess is that he might be familiar with this site? It is good that you at least listen to contrary viewpoints.
In my opinion your view of human nature and human behavior is problematic. But let’s focus on the empirical facts. You argue that 50 to 64 year olds produce more tons of carbon dioxide than do other age groups. Can you explain this calculation? Can you explain the size of the discretionary component? How much variance is there among this group? What % are producing 50% of the average? What % are producing 2 times the average? If so, what are they doing and how much of what they are doing is discretionary? Do you really not see how presumptuous and condescending your approach to changing human behavior is?
As to the findings of climate science, your reference to the vast stores of methane and the implied strong positive feedback loop has a problem. Since we know the world has been warmer in the past, such a significant positive feedback mechanism would create an unstable process. Since there is no evidence that this has been the case, then raising the CH4 bogey amounts to irresponsible scaremongering.
Similarly, you mention Tuvalu – a favorite topic here at WUWT because it is used iconically to scare folks.
You said: “Unless you live on a small island state such as Tuvalu, near Fiji, which is slowly sinking due to the rising sea level, it is easy to think climate change is a myth.”
I assume you have seen Webb, A.P., Kench, P.S., The dynamic response of reef islands to sea-level rise: Evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the Central Pacific, Global and Planetary Change (2010), doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.05.003 .
This study of actual physical land masses calls into question the net effects of changes in sea level in Micronesia. The authors conclude:
This study presents analysis of the physical change in 27 atoll islands located in the central Pacific Ocean over the past 20 to 60 yr, a period over which instrumental records indicate an increase in sea level of the order of 2.0 mm yr−1.
The results show that island area has remained largely stable or increased over the timeframe of analysis. Forty-three percent of islands increased in area by more than 3% with the largest increases of 30% on Betio (Tarawa atoll) and 28.3% on Funamanu (Funafuti atoll).
There is no evidence of large-scale reduction in island area despite the upward trend in sea level. Consequently, islands have predominantly been persistent or expanded in area on atoll rims for the past 20 to 60 yr.
Perhaps you could be less irresponsible and include this result as a caveat the next time you reference Tuvalu.
The issue is not whether climate is changing or whether human beings impact climate. It is and we do. As always the devil is in the details and the details are very important and very much open to debate. Scaring old folks into paying more for grossly inefficient electricity generated from wind turbines, buying new appliances with questionable net CO2 gains, turning down their thermostats or spending inordinate amounts of time on public transportation is extremely irresponsible until the details are less in question.
“We do not assume that this demogprahic group is “not inherently intelligent” and or cannot make up their own mind. From our experience we found that not all people in this demographic group have access to the internet, information sources or knows what action to take.”
garyhaq,
Some people don’t need access to the internet or desire it, they already have satisfactory information sources and are already doing all the actions necessary to live happily or at least adequately. FYI
Andrew
Gary Haq –
“From our experience we found that not all people in this demographic group have access to the internet, information sources or knows what action to take.”
I’m a member of a golf club with around 140 Senior (ie over age 55) members. A couple of years ago a new computer system was introduced so that registration for competitions and most communications would be carried out through the website and by email. There was much discussion and even fear that the senior members would stop entering competitions, and might even leave to join another club. Since the changeover, competitions have become oversubscribed almost every week and we’ve established that fewer than 10 seniors don’t have access to the internet (ie about 7%). Perhaps it’s not typical and it certainly isn’t a scientific survey, but I’d like to know more precisely what you mean by “not all people in this demographic group” in your comment above. For all we know, you could be meaning less than 1%. What do you regard as a significant percentage? If, say, 90% of the age group have access to the internet etc, how much would you recommend spending to reach out to the other 10%? Did you find out if the carbon footprint of those without computer access differed significantly from that of those with computer access? Without that information it is surely impossible to take your conclusions further.
Hah! I’ve done my three score and ten and am now into borrowed time.
I have a tin of ferrari red paint ready for my zimmer frame when it arrives
and woe betide any policy wonks who stand in my way – I know where
to stick the handles so it really hurts. They will become whimper-snappers.