There is no doubt that air pollution is a serious environmental risk affecting the health, well-being and life chances of hundreds of millions of men, women and children every day. But what is the economic cost of our inaction to address deteriorating air quality?
Air pollution (indoor and outdoor) was responsible for 5.5 million premature deaths globally in 2013. More than 80% of people living in urban areas that monitor air pollution are exposed to air quality levels that exceed the World Health Organization (WHO) limits. It is often the poor and socially marginalized who tend to suffer disproportionately from the effects of deteriorating air quality due to living near sources of pollution
Air pollution also has an impact on crop yields, biodiversity and ecosystems. These all have economic consequences which affect economic growth and societal welfare, which will worsen if no action is taken to address poor air quality.
The OECD has estimated the economic cost of outdoor air pollution. In the absence of stringent measures air pollutants are expected to lead to higher concentrations of particulate matter (PM2.5) and ground level ozone (O3); further exacerbating the air pollution situation in those regions that already exceed WHO air quality guidelines.
According to the OECD, outdoor air pollution will impact labour productivity, health expenditures and agricultural crop yields amounting to 1% of global GDP by 2060.
In particular, the number of premature deaths are expected to increase from approximately 3 million (2010) to 6-9 million annually by 2060. It is densely populated regions with high concentrations of PM2.5 and O3 such as China and India, which will be most affected.
The annual global welfare costs associated with the premature deaths from outdoor air pollution are projected to increases from USD 300 billion (2015) to USD 2.2. trillion by 2060.
Conventional wisdom expects air pollution to increase as countries undergo economic development, but this is not the case for all countries and pollutants.
Since the 1990s, sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions in Asia have declined, mostly due to a emission reductions in China.
China has decreased its emissions of SO2 from 23.8 million tons in 1995 to 20 million tons in 2000 due to a general reform of industry and power generation including a substantial decline in industrial high-sulphur coal use and an improvement in energy efficiency and economic growth.
However, the reduction of particular pollutants (e.g. NOx, PM and O3) has been slow in some countries due to an increase in the number of vehicles which offset the emission reductions achieved by improved vehicle technology.
Nevertheless, many countries have recognized air pollution as a key environment problem that needs to be addressed. Those cities which have been able to introduce emission control early in their development path (e.g. Hong Kong, Tokyo and Singapore) have avoided the extremely high levels of urban pollution that are often associated with other cities that have introduced emission control measures later.
The earlier integrated air quality managements systems are introduced, the lower the maximum pollution levels and lower the impact on human health and environment.
The evidence is clear, we need to act to protect human health, exploit climate co-benefits and ensure everyone can breathe clean air.
Environmental labelling of products and services has been used as a way to ‘nudge’ consumers to make greener choices but can car labelling lead to lower vehicles emissions and better air quality?
Car labelling was introduced in 1992 to inform European consumers about the fuel consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of new passenger cars enabling them to contribute to achieving a 40% reduction in economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.
Reducing transport emissions has health and climate protection benefits. The 250 million passenger cars in use in the European Union (EU) account for 14% of the final energy use and 12% of the fuel-related CO2 emissions. Therefore increasing the fuel efficiency of cars can reduce urban air pollutants, CO2 emissions and fuel costs.
Energy labelling has been successful in encouraging consumers to purchase energy efficient domestic appliances (e.g., refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers and washing machines) with 90% of appliances sold in the EU now labelled as class A.
Although causality is difficult to establish, estimates suggest that the EU energy label has contributed to CO2 emission reductions of some 14 Mt annually over the period 1996 and 2004. However, an estimated 10% of energy savings are lost due to poor enforcement and a lack of cooperation and application across EU Member States.
When it comes to buying a new car, consumers consider factors such as price, fuel consumption, comfort, size, reliability, safety, engine power as well as brand and image. Although environmental attributes listed in a car label, information about fuel consumption and environmental impacts appear to be less important than other factors (e.g., price or hauling capacity) in the choice of a car model Moreover, information on fuel consumption can be perceived by consumers in an ambiguous manner.
A review of the current status of car labelling in the EU found that EU Member States rely either directly or indirectly on the distance-specific CO2 emissions [g/km] determined in the laboratory test procedures. However, laboratory testing has come under criticism for being unrepresentative of real-world driving and therefore underestimates the actual on-road CO2 emissions of cars.
The gap between the distance-specific CO2 emissions measured in the laboratory and on the road has been widening in the past decade and reached 31-49% in 2014. This observation suggests that the data underlying car labelling in the EU systematically underestimate both fuel costs and environmental impacts.
For example, an average European gasoline car is labelled with 129 g CO2/km and a fuel consumption of 5.6 l/100 km. However, on the road this vehicle may actually emit 169-193 g CO2/km and consume 7.3-8.3 l/100 km of fuel (assuming a gap of 31-49% between the certified and actual on-road fuel consumption) resulting in increased yearly fuel cost and CO2 emissions.
Such discrepancies risk consumers losing trust in the claims of the car label, which, in turn, could undermine the current and future efforts to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars.
In addition, the different methodologies used by EU member states to translate CO2 emission values into label classes has resulted in differences in the labelling for efficient medium size to luxury cars.
Not only that, the current European car labelling schemes unable to differentiate vehicles that emit between zero and 95-100 g CO2/km. This shortcoming will become of increasing importance as hybrid, plug-in hybrid and electric cars are being promoted as a solution to poor urban air quality.
Finally, although consumer awareness of the European car label is steadily growing, it still remains low with comprehension affecting both familiarity and trust in the label.
More than 80% of people living in urban areas that monitor air pollution are exposed to air quality levels that exceed World Health Organization (WHO) limits with vehicle emissions being a key contributor to poor air quality. To move towards a more sustainable transport system we need to promote walking, cycling and public transport as well as clean and efficient fuels and vehicles.
The car will always have a role in society and therefore if consumers want to buy a car then they should go for the greener and cleaner vehicle. Car labelling could be influential in purchasing decisions but it has to be accurate and reflect emissions and fuel consumption under real-world conditions.
Despite these limitations, car labelling should be part of an overall strategy to reduce transport-related CO2 emissions and increase societal well-being.
Air pollution is now considered the world’s largest environmental health risk.
A study of regional sources of outdoor particulate matter (PM2.5) in 51 countries found that globally 25% of urban outdoor particulate pollution is from traffic, 15% from industrial activities, 20% by domestic fuel burning, 22% from unspecified sources of human origin, and 18% from natural dust and salt.
In Asia, poor air quality is among the top five risks to human health in developing countries of the continent with more than 2.6 million premature deaths attributed to poor air quality pollution reported in the Western Pacific and South East Asian regions.
The Guidance Framework for Better Air Quality in Asian Cities helps policy-makers to improve air quality management. It also demonstrates the co-benefits of addressing air and climate pollutants and highlights win-win strategies which can contribute to meeting the economic and social needs of developing countries.
A voluntary road map to improve urban air quality, the Guidance Framework is organized around key areas of concern. It aims to equip countries and cities with the knowledge and direction needed to effectively reduce air pollution, mapping out the steps and actions to be taken by national and local-level policy-makers to improve air quality across six guidance areas:
Guidance Area 1: Ambient air quality standards and monitoring
Guidance Area 1 outlines the need to establish/strengthen ambient air quality standards and sustainable national and local air quality monitoring systems to understand the status of air quality and air quality targets for public health and environment protection.
Guidance Area 2: Emissions inventories and modelling
Guidance Area 2 outlines the need to develop an accurate and reliable emissions inventory and apply dispersion modelling and source apportionment techniques to have a better understanding of air pollution sources and their characterization. This information can guide the development of clean air action plans and related environmental and developmental plans and policies.
Guidance Area 3: Health and other impacts
Guidance Area 3 outlines the need to improved understanding of impacts of air pollution informs clean air action plans development and helps engage stakeholders in this issue. Multi-stakeholder approaches contribute to effective co-management of air pollution as well as greenhouse gas emissions, leading to significant co-benefits with regards to public health.
Guidance Area 4: Air quality communication
Guidance Area 4 outlines the need for an effective communication strategy to inform, educate and strengthen stakeholder participation in all aspects of air quality management.
Guidance Area 5: Clean air action plans
Guidance Area 5 outlines the need to develop clean air action plans that include and/or legally strengthen air quality management in relevant policies and legislation, with the ultimate goal of improving air quality in regions and cities.
Guidance Area 6: Governance
Guidance Area 6 outlines the need for effective governance that aims to facilitate policy development and enforcement. Effective governance also educates and strengthens stakeholder participation in all aspects of air quality management to prevent and reduce air pollution impacts.
The Guidance Framework also allows cities to be classified according to their air quality management capabilities (i.e. underdeveloped, developing, emerging, maturing, or fully developed). These development stages allow cities to assess their status and encourage them to attain the fully developed stage.
While the Guidance Framework outlines voluntary actions to achieve better air quality, its implementation will be dependent on overcoming common challenges faced in tackling air pollution in Asia. These range from a lack of government commitment and stakeholder participation, weaknesses in policies, standards and regulations, through to deficiencies in data on emissions, air quality and impacts on human health and the environment. The relatively low priority for air quality management means that funding is also often a problem.
Hopefully, the increased awareness of air pollution issues together with the support provided by Clean Air Asia to implement the Guidance Framework as part of the Integrated Programme for Better Air Quality in Asia, will enable countries and cities to move along the road to better air quality.
Christmas time is accompanied by seasonal increases in our level of consumption. But what is the environmental impact of Christmas?
From eating and drinking to giving and receiving, it is the time of the year when we do things to excess. Unfortunately, it also means we are likely to have a greater impact on the environment.
A number of studies have attempted to calculate the carbon footprint of Christmas.
So, let’s start with the Christmas tree. When it comes to the use of an artificial versus a natural Christmas tree, one study found that when compared on an annual basis, the artificial tree (6 yrs life span) has three times more impact on climate change and resource depletion than the natural tree. The natural tree contributes significantly less carbon dioxide emission (39%) than the artificial tree.
As for Christmas dinner, it has been estimated that a British style Christmas dinner is equivalent to 20kg of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission – 60 per cent related to life cycle of turkey. Total equivalent emissions for UK Christmas dinners is 51,000 tonnes – or 148 million miles travelled in a car. Cranberry sauce is the worst offender for transport-related carbon emissions.
Even Santa Claus is not excluded from scrutiny. With another study suggesting that Santa’s 133 million mile trip around the world is responsible for emitting about 70 million tons of CO2!
However, if we look at the total consumption and spending on food, travel, lighting and gifts over three days of festivities (Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Boxing Day). Then this could result in as much as 650 kg of CO2 emissions per person – equivalent to the weight of 1,000 Christmas puddings!
Such studies will vary in their assumptions, data sets and methodologies and may not necessarily be comparable. However, we don’t need any study to tell us what we already know – that our consumption peaks at this time of the year.
But we can still have a good Christmas and be kind to the planet?
With a bit of thought we can limit the impact we have on the environment this Christmas and still have a great time. There are a number of actions we can all take which can reduce our CO2 emissions.
• Support your local economy and try buying from local organic suppliers.
• Compost your vegetable peelings after you’ve finished cooking to make sure that this extra organic waste doesn’t head straight to landfill.
• Plan your meal carefully to reduce the amount of uneaten food thrown away – check who likes Brussels sprouts! Travel
• Plan your Christmas travel to reduce the distance travelled and try and use environmentally friendly modes of transport or car share. Lighting
• Less is more when it come Christmas lighting! Opt for a small tasteful lighting display and turn the fairy lights off before bed and save both money and carbon.
• When it comes to Christmas presents buy quality not quantity. Well-made goods last longer and will not have to be replaced in the New Year.
• A good Christmas gift doesn’t necessarily have to be expensive.
Think about giving alternative gifts such as a charity or environmentally friendly gift, an experience or giving your time.
• Give your unwanted gifts to charity or to local hospitals or hospices.
In this time of seasonal goodwill, we should all spare a thought for the planet!
The rate and scale of human-induced global environmental change is so significant that it now constitutes a new geological epoch in the Earth’s history called the Anthropocene.
The acceleration of human pressure on the Earth’s system has caused critical global, regional and local thresholds to be exceeded. This could have irreversible effects on the life-support function of the planet with adverse implications for human health and wellbeing. More than ever, there is a need to have appropriate and effective environmental policies to make the transition to a low carbon and sustainable society.
New social movements, political parties, greater media coverage of environmental disasters, and a growing body of scientific evidence on the effects of environmental pollution have all led to an increased imperative to take action.
However, the human cost of environmental change must not be underestimated. For example, population growth and an increased trend towards urbanisation have all had social and environmental consequences. The loss of arable land has increased concerns about food security, and has contributed to higher levels of environmental pollution.
Poor sanitation in developing countries, especially in slum areas on the peripheries of cities is clearly associated with an increase in preventable diseases such as cholera. Additionally, conflicts and social unrest associated with dwindling resources are evident, and are likely to increase if current trends continue.
In addition, the impact of climate change is potentially so profound and could result in population displacement, widespread threats to those living in low lying areas, risks to food security, increased diseases are all predicted impacts of climate change. While the immediate burden of these effects is more likely to fall on developing countries, there are major implications also for developed nations.
In order to effectively address environmental problems through policy, a number of issues needed to be considered:
balancing social, economic and environmental objectives
addressing uncertainty, risk and the negative impacts of policies
the scale of the problem and the solution.
Traditionally, environmental policy has had to compete with social and economic objectives. While sustainable development has provided the paradigm to demonstrate that all three are equally important, this has not always been translated into practice.
Attempts have been made, however, to include the environmental costs of human activity into policy evaluation tools by giving a monetary value to the costs and benefits of environmental regulation.
At the international level, policy debates have attempted to balance economic and development concerns. One of the strategies of international climate policy is the investment in projects that will encourage greener development trajectories in developing countries.
However, national level policy making is influenced by national political system, national elites, existing policy frameworks or legacies, and any national level environmental concerns. Local level policy is affected by many similar issues, but is often subject to local circumstances.
Meeting future environmental challenges will require more flexible and adaptive global and national governance frameworks. Doing so will also potentially require a redefinition of wealth and prosperity, taking into account the impact of consuming limited and non-renewable resources.
Potential barriers to meeting these challenges include a lack of political will to make difficult changes with short-term costs, and a lack of public acceptance that such changes are necessary.
In developed countries, popular aspirations, habits and lifestyles which rely on high levels of consumption may not be amenable to the action that is needed to address environmental challenges, suggesting the requirement for change in some aspects of society and social norms.
A further challenge is the requirement to consider the economic development needs of the world’s poorest countries alongside the need for environmental protection.
In the ‘Age of Man’ increasing natural resource scarcity, rising global temperatures, biodiversity loss, environmental pollution and food and energy insecurity means that appropriate and effective environmental policy is vital if we are to remain within planetary boundaries, and ensure the future survival of humankind.
Since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased. Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years. Breaking more temperature records than in any other decade.
The authors of the new report on the physical evidence for climate change state that continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system.
The Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is projected to be likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 in all but the lowest scenario considered, and likely to exceed 2°C for the two high scenarios. Heat waves are very likely to occur more frequently and last longer.
As the Earth warms, we expect to see currently wet regions receiving more rainfall, and dry regions receiving less, although there will be exceptions.
It is the poorest regions of the world and the most vulnerable individuals such as the young and elderly who will be most affected.
Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. This will require international action to adopt ambitious legal agreement on climate change in 2015. We will only know over the next year or whether the new evidence will have any impact on national governments who are preoccupied with stimulating growth, reducing debt and increasing employment.
The assessment draws on millions of observations and over 2 million gigabytes of numerical data from climate model simulations. Over 9,200 scientific publications are cited, more than three quarters of which have been published since the last IPCC assessment in 2007.
Key evidence highlighted in the report is given below with levels of confidence:
Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971.
Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence).
The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901–2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m.
The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years.
CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification.
Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750.
Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.
Climate models have improved since the last 2007 of assessment of the physical evidence on cliamte change. Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence).
Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in the Earth’s energy budget together provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing.
Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since the last assessment. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system.
Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5.
Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform.
Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions.
The global ocean will continue to warm during the 21st century. Heat will penetrate from the surface to the deep ocean and affect ocean circulation.
It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further decrease.
Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century. Under all RCP scenarios the rate of sea level rise will very likely exceed that observed during 1971–2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets.
Climate change will affect carbon cycle processes in a way that will exacerbate the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (high confidence). Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will increase ocean acidification.
Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2.
The report increases in the confidence associated with climate observations but whichever facts may be discussed, debated or distorted, we cannot ignore the reality that we must act or face frightening new impacts.
By 2050 there will be an unprecedented increase in the number of people aged 55-plus representing nearly a quarter of the global population.
The rise in the numbers of older people is happening more rapidly in developing countries where 60 per cent of the world’s older people currently live, particularly in Asia and Africa.
An ageing population has wide-ranging implications for environment, economy and society. Changes in age structure together with an expanding population, rapid urbanisation and levels of consumption are all placing pressure on the global environment.
This presents challenges in eradicating poverty, ensuring environmental justice and achieving an environmentally sustainable development, especially in the least developed countries of the world.
The interaction between an ageing population and the environment poses significant challenges and opportunities for public policy.
However, policy makers at the international level have given little attention to the effects global environmental change will have on this demographic group.
Older people are a diverse group. Some are educated, fit, active and wealthy, have access to most of the goods and services they need and desire and play a key role in caring for themselves and other family members including grandchildren. In contrast, others are poor, frail and require care and financial support.
There are major regional differences, with poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia resulting in many older people in these areas lacking access to clean water, sanitation, nutrition and basic health care, making them highly vulnerable to environmental threats.
A study by the Stockholm Environment Institute reviews the key issues relevant to global ageing and environmental change. It examines older people not only in terms of their vulnerability to environmental threats but as potential contributors to environmental sustainability. The study recommend three areas for action if we are protect older people from future environmental change.
REDUCING THE ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT OF AN AGEING POPULATION
Promoting greener attitudes and behaviours and influencing individual lifestyle choices across the life course are measures that can and should be used to reduce the future and current environmental footprint of older people.
This is particularly important at a time when many rapidly developing countries are seeing an increase in a high-consuming middle-class group who will eventually grow older.
There is an equally important need to engage older people using appropriate approaches such as peer-to-peer approaches which could provide more credibility.
Targeted engagement of older people not only fosters greener behaviours but also responds to their perceived lack of opportunities for social involvement and inter¬action.
Recent studies undertaken on direct interaction with the older age sector on climate change have demonstrated that, used in the appropriate way, it is a headline topic that stimulates lively discussion and debate on many issues related to environment and sustainability
Appropriate infrastructure and incentives that encourages greener behaviours in later life will also be needed. Since there will be a high number of urban seniors, achieving age-friendly cities will be important. In particular, older people require supportive and enabling living environments to compensate for physical and social changes associated with ageing.
These include walkable outdoor space and accessible public buildings, accessible and affordable public transport, appropriately designed, affordable and energy efficient housing with access to local services, opportunities for social participation and social inclusion, civic participation and employment.
PROTECTING OLDER PEOPLE FROM ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
We need policies that reduce the environmental vulnerability of older people and that focus on each part of the dynamic process that creates vulnerability.
These include policies that ensure people reach later life with sufficient reserves (e.g. coping skills, strong family and social ties and savings and assets), reducing the challenges they face in later life, and providing adequate health and social protection.
These factors will be different for older people in the developed and developing world. In developing countries, lack of basic infrastructure such as clean water and sanitation and health and social care combined with poverty and malnutrition make them vulnerable to environmental threats.
HelpAge International has discussed the need for climate and development strategies to be responsive to the realities of the ageing population and climate change. They suggest without age appropriate action, the effectiveness and success of climate adaption and national development and resilience strategies could be significantly compromised.
HelpAge International outlines ten strategies to coping with an ageing population in a changing climate .
In addition, Help the Aged identified ten basic requirements to make developed world communities better for older people.
These requirements included: adapting new and existing accommodation to suit people of all ages; transport options that meet the needs of all older people; keeping pavements in good repair; provision of public toilets; public seating; good street lighting and clean streets with a police presence; access to shops and services; places to socialise; information and advice; and ensuring older people’s voices are heard on issues from social care to volunteering opportunities.
If we are going to better protect individual countries need to be adopted. Policies that provide social protection, encouraging healthy life¬styles, acquisition of coping skills, strong family and social ties, active interests and, of course, savings and assets, will be important. All will assist in ensuring that people’s reserves are, and remain, strong in later life.
MOBILISING OLDER PEOPLE IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Seniors’ knowledge of the local environment, its vulnerabilities and how the community responds allows them to play a key role in reducing the environmental impact of disasters. In particular, their knowledge of socio-ecological system and coping mechanisms can in some contexts be critical when developing local disaster risk reduction and adaptation plans .
Growing old in the twenty-first century will bring with it the unique challenge of a changing global environment with variable climate and weather patterns which will impact on all aspects of life. Policies therefore need to be ‘age proofed’ so that they can support older people through their life course.
If we are to prevent and minimise the negative impact of environmental change on older people, there is an urgent need to better understand the interaction between global ageing and the environment. We need to harness the contribution older people can make to addressing environmental threats, while reducing their vulnerability.