Is Grandpa Bad for the Environment? Climate change and the aging population.

By Jacob Leibenluft Posted Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2008, at 6:59 AM

 

Everyone's always talking about how an aging population, with more retirees, is going to wreak havoc on Social Security and the federal budget. Here's my question: What impact will that have on the planet? After all, my grandparents don't seem to care much about global warming, their refrigerator is from the 1970s, and they use an awful lot of air conditioning at home. Give it to me straight: Are Grandma and Grandpa bad for the environment?

"Do it for the kids" has always been one of the most popular arguments in favor of environmentalism: Older people need to get their act together, or else it's the children who will suffer the environmental consequences. Indeed, in terms of what they buy and how they vote, younger Americans tend to be more eco-conscious than seniors, who are less likely than anyone else to believe that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. But here's the weird thing: In practice, it's the older folks who are better for the environment.

In an effort to improve models of global warming, a team of researchers led by Brian O'Neill of the National Center for Atmospheric Research estimated (PDF) what U.S. emissions would look like in two different cases: one in which the age structure of the population looked exactly the same as today's, and another where—as many demographers project—the percentage of Americans over 65 more than doubled.

Their conclusion: Grayer is greener, with the aging population expected to produce anywhere between 10 percent and 37 percent fewer emissions by the year 2100. At first glance, the Green Lantern assumed this must be because older Americans spend their money in a more environmentally friendly way. For one, they drive a good deal less, so they spend less money on gas and produce less air pollution. They are also less likely to buy new big-ticket items, like cars or large appliances. And they spend a huge percentage of their income on health care, which—dollar for dollar—doesn't produce that much pollution or require that much energy.

In fact, says O'Neill, the consumption mix for older people isn't significantly more carbon-efficient than the mix for younger folks. Older Americans spend a higher percentage of their incomes heating and cooling their homes—so much so that it just about cancels out whatever benefits they generate by driving less. (If you are elderly or have elderly parents, that makes it even more important to invest in insulation and other energy-saving fixes.) The elderly do spend a lot of their money on health care, but the rest of us put more resources into education, another clean way to spend.

The real reason older Americans are better for the environment is that they work less and have lower incomes. It's not so much that they spend their money in a better way—it's just that they don't spend as much in the first place. The general aging of the population will make America somewhat poorer—after all, economic growth will slow as a greater share of consumers become unable to work. A slowed economy in turn produces less pollution. All told, the aging of the population won't reduce U.S. emissions enough to halt climate change, but it might make our work a little bit easier.

What can younger folks learn from the elderly about becoming more environmentally friendly? Not much. Growing older means becoming greener only because it involves a lifestyle change that no young person wants to make—namely, becoming a good deal poorer. In that sense, the aging of America—and to an even greater extent, Western Europe and Japan—offers just about the least attractive plan there is for combating global warming. With a smaller percentage of the population working, the challenge is to find a way to keep growing in a grayer world, while making sure that growth is green, too. Modern environmentalism—and this column!—put great stake in the idea that small, individual choices, added together, can make a big difference. It turns out that who we are, demographically speaking, ends up mattering at least as much as what we do.

 

READING 4

Technofixes, can we fix global warming?

How can we deal with global warming? There has been a lot of interest in ‘alternatives’ or ‘technofixes’ for solving the problem of global warming. There are four main areas of technofixes:

1. CO2removal from industrial processes can contribute substantially to a reduction in atmospheric CO2; however, further research and development is required to improve the performance and their application of these methods within the concepts of sustainable development.

2. We can use less energy and thus produce less carbon dioxide. It is feasible to improve energy efficiency by 50% on average over the next three decades, although this will require tough policy measures, like the introduction of a high-energy or carbon tax. An example is that efficiency in power generation can be increased by 60% using advanced technologies in the field of gas turbines and fuel cells.

3. There are renewable/alternative energy sources, i.e. energy sources which do not produce a net amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Most promising in the short term is biomass, which by the year 2020 could produce a third of the global energy. When the biomass is growing it absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere which is only returned when it is burnt as a fuel and thus there is no net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Most promising for the long term is solar energy, while wind power is thought to be an excellent intermediate solution, particularly in countries such as the UK, where sunlight cannot be guaranteed. Many countries are also discussing renewing their nuclear programmes as a non-carbon-emission energy source, but problems of safety and dumping nuclear waste still remain the main objections. Alternative energies are no longer the remit of the environmental NGOs; with the exception of some US oil companies, with Exxon/ Mobil (Esso in Europe) top of the list, most of the rest of the global business community is reacting rapidly to the need for different energy sources. In the last five years, companies like Ford and oil companies like BP and Shell have begun to pour billions of dollars into researching new technologies. Wind power is now mainstream, solar power is in rapid development, hybrid cars are on the roads. Cars that run on fuel cells, hydrogen, and compressed air are no longer pipe dreams.

4. There is the possibility of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere either by growing new forests or by stimulating the ocean to take up more.

Technofixes, can we fix global warming?

How can we deal with global warming? We have seen that governments are slowly getting their act together to reduce carbon dioxide emission; however, there are concerns over how much this will cost. There has therefore been a lot of interest in ‘alternatives’ or ‘technofixes’ for solving the problem of global warming. There are four main areas of technofixes:

1. CO2removal from industrial processes can contribute substantially to a reduction in atmospheric CO2; however, further research and development is required to improve the performance and their application of these methods within the concepts of sustainable development.

2. We can use less energy and thus produce less carbon dioxide. It is feasible to improve energy efficiency by 50% on average over the next three decades, although this will require tough policy measures, like the introduction of a high-energy or carbon tax. An example is that efficiency in power generation can be increased by 60% using advanced technologies in the field of gas turbines and fuel cells.

3. There are renewable/alternative energy sources, i.e. energy sources which do not produce a net amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Most promising in the short term is biomass, which by the year 2020 could produce a third of the global energy. When the biomass is growing it absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere which is only returned when it is burnt as a fuel and thus there is no net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Most promising for the long term is solar energy, while wind power is thought to be an excellent intermediate solution, particularly in countries such as the UK, where sunlight cannot be guaranteed. Many countries are also discussing renewing their nuclear programmes as a non-carbon-emission energy source, but problems of safety and dumping nuclear waste still remain the main objections. Alternative energies are no longer the remit of the environmental NGOs; with the exception of some US oil companies, with Exxon/ Mobil (Esso in Europe) top of the list, most of the rest of the global business community is reacting rapidly to the need for different energy sources. In the last five years, companies like Ford and oil companies like BP and Shell have begun to pour billions of dollars into researching new technologies. Wind power is now mainstream, solar power is in rapid development, hybrid cars are on the roads. Cars that run on fuel cells, hydrogen, and compressed air are no longer pipe dreams.

4. There is the possibility of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere either by growing new forests or by stimulating the ocean to take up more.

 

 

READING 5

UN SAYS EAT LESS MEAT TO CURB GLOBAL WARMING

I. Fill the gaps in the sentences using these key words from the text.

 

sacrifice consumption gluttony contradictory simplistic graze livestock ruminant feasibility flatulence

1. ____________________ is the process of eating or drinking something.

2. A ____________________ is an animal such as a cow or sheep that brings food back from its stomach into its mouth to chew it a second time.

3. ____________________ is when a person or animal has too much gas in their stomach or intestines.

4. When animals ____________________, they eat grass growing in a field.

5. ____________________ is the chance that something has of happening or being successful.

6. ____________________ is the bad habit of eating more than you need.

7. If two or more ideas are ____________________, they disagree with each other and cannot both or all be true.

8. ___________________ is the collective word for animals such as cows, sheep and pigs that are kept on farms.

9. If you make a ____________________, you give up something important or valuable so that you or other people can do or have something else.

10. A ____________________ idea treats something in a way that makes it seem simpler than it really is.

 

II. What do you know?

Decide whether these statements are True (T) or False (F). Then check your answers in the text.

1. Carbon dioxide is a more effective greenhouse gas than methane.

2. Meat production produces 10% of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.

3. The average British person eats more meat than WHO guidelines recommend.

4. Reducing car use by half would cut greenhouse gases by more than reducing meat consumption by half.

5. If everyone became vegetarian, greenhouse gases would be reduced dramatically.

6. Keeping livestock indoors would be bad for their health.