by: Dick Stroud
I encountered this research a few weeks ago and published a blog item. The slant then was that the over-50s are sceptical of climate change.
The final report is now published and the ‘conclusions’ are finding their way into the mainstream press. In many ways this is report is a microcosm of the whole climate change debate.
A report, with a lot of fancy graphs, is created with the main conclusions based upon a ‘model’ – in this case the Stockholm Environment Institute’s Resources and Energy Analysis Programme.
The headline conclusions are then picked up and reported, in an uncritical way, by the general media. The reason for the lack of objective reporting is that most mainstream journalists are scientifically-challenged (understatement) and also anything to do with climate change is beyond criticism.
A few things concern me about this report.
1. The research didn’t take account of the geographic spread of older people (i.e. far more are based in a rural and suburban than urban areas). This changes their need for car transport. To provide an accurate comparison the researchers should have compared the carbon consumption of rural 30 year olds with the rural 50-plus. Also cities have a higher ambient temperature which reduces the need carbon used in household heating.
2. Older people are more likely to have larger properties, with all of the implications this has on heating and lighting etc.
3. No consideration was given for the way that older people consume carbon on behalf of their children and grandchildren (i.e. kids not leaving home until much later and the amount of time that grandparents spend looking after grandchildren).
4. The report used a measurement of carbon efficiency (kg/£/capita) which is misleading since older people (75+) spend a disproportional amount of their total incomes on heating/lighting. The true comparison is the total amount spent on heating - not as a proportion of total income.
5. The research didn’t appear to take account of the carbon that employers consume on behalf of their employees. Since there are a lot less 50+ in employment than 30 year olds that is an important factor.
6. The attitude to climate change section didn’t compare the results with those of younger people. So how much more sceptical are the oldies than their kids?
The report does contain some interesting stuff and asks some worthwhile questions but it appears a bit thin on academic rigour.
The report’s recommendations are simplistic. These are the generic motherhood statements that could have been written before the research started.
Government should:
• invest in increasing the energy efficiency of the UK housing stock
• invest in high quality public transport systems
• reverse the current trend which is for motoring costs to go down in real terms while public transport costs go up
• introduce German style packaging and packaging waste tax to encourage manufacturers to reduce the amount of packaging they use.
A few things concern me about this report.
1. The research didn’t take account of the geographic spread of older people (i.e. far more are based in a rural and suburban than urban areas). This changes their need for car transport. To provide an accurate comparison the researchers should have compared the carbon consumption of rural 30 year olds with the rural 50-plus. Also cities have a higher ambient temperature which reduces the need carbon used in household heating.
2. Older people are more likely to have larger properties, with all of the implications this has on heating and lighting etc.
3. No consideration was given for the way that older people consume carbon on behalf of their children and grandchildren (i.e. kids not leaving home until much later and the amount of time that grandparents spend looking after grandchildren).
4. The report used a measurement of carbon efficiency (kg/£/capita) which is misleading since older people (75+) spend a disproportional amount of their total incomes on heating/lighting. The true comparison is the total amount spent on heating - not as a proportion of total income.
5. The research didn’t appear to take account of the carbon that employers consume on behalf of their employees. Since there are a lot less 50+ in employment than 30 year olds that is an important factor.
6. The attitude to climate change section didn’t compare the results with those of younger people. So how much more sceptical are the oldies than their kids?
The report does contain some interesting stuff and asks some worthwhile questions but it appears a bit thin on academic rigour.
The report’s recommendations are simplistic. These are the generic motherhood statements that could have been written before the research started.
Government should:
• invest in increasing the energy efficiency of the UK housing stock
• invest in high quality public transport systems
• reverse the current trend which is for motoring costs to go down in real terms while public transport costs go up
• introduce German style packaging and packaging waste tax to encourage manufacturers to reduce the amount of packaging they use.
7/10 for presentation. 3/10 for academic rigour and original thinking.
Our report has received much attention and has obviously upset a few people in the process.
The carbon footprint we undertook is a per capita analysis by age based on a scientifically standardized methodology and national data. Our model is one of the state-of-art model's currently available in the UK on resource and energy flows. It has been used to inform national and local government.
As clearly stated in the introduction of the report, when we under take a per capita analysis this has the disadvantage of converting everyone to a “average”.
A per capita analysis of the carbon footprint gives an indication of the amount of carbon dioxide an individual produces and allows comparisons to be made between different groups. However, it is based on an average and does not necessarily reflect the actions taken by many individuals to reduce their carbon footprint.
The analysis by age was based on the National Expenditure Survey and examined expenditure on over 41 kinds of household expenditure categories. It is based on individual household consumption.
The questions highlighted in this blog would require a detailed individual carbon footprint over every 50+ year old. However, it even if you this was undertaken it would identify that transport and home energy are the key expenditure categories for this age group and this changes with age.
Our survey examined attitudes of over 700 people and included focus group discussions with 50 people.
The recommendations rather than being “simplistic” are a direct result from the discussions we had with this age group. They are the barriers which prevent this age group from totally engaging in a low carbon lifestyle.
The report serves to highlight the impact of consumption by age and the willingness of this age group to do more to lead a green lifestyle.
It is based on a rigorous scientific methodology and the results of engaging with this age group. Not a personal view of the any one individual.