# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Advertisement

Continue reading the main storyOpinion

Continue reading the main story Guest Essay

This Is the World Being Left to Us by AdultsAug. 19, 2021 Credit...Illustration by The New York Times; Photograph by Pablo Blazquez Dominguez\Stringer Send any friend a story

As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.

Give this article475 By Greta Thunberg, Adriana Calderón, Farzana Faruk Jhumu and Eric Njuguna

The authors are youth climate activists from Sweden, Mexico, Bangladesh and Kenya, working with the international youth-led Fridays For Future movement.

Last week, some of the world's leading climate change scientists confirmed that humans are making irreversible changes to our planet and extreme weather will only become more severe. This news is a "code red for humanity," said the United Nations secretary general.

It is - but young people like us have been sounding this alarm for years. You just haven't listened.

On Aug. 20, 2018, one child staged a lone protest outside the Swedish Parliament, expecting to stay for three weeks. Tomorrow we will mark three years since Greta Thunberg's strike. Even earlier, brave young people from around the world spoke out about the climate crisis in their communities. And today, millions of children and young people have united in a movement with one voice, demanding that decision makers do the work necessary to save our planet from the unprecedented heat waves, massive floods and vast wildfires we are increasingly witnessing. Our protest will not end until the inaction does.

For children and young people, climate change is the single greatest threat to our futures. We are the ones who will have to clean up the mess you adults have made, and we are the ones who are more likely to suffer now. Children are more vulnerable than adults to the dangerous weather events, diseases and other harms caused by climate change, which is why a new analysis released Friday by UNICEF is so important.

The Children's Climate Risk Index provides the first comprehensive view of where and how this crisis affects children. It ranks countries based on children's exposure to climate and environmental shocks, as well as their underlying vulnerability to those shocks.

A changing climate, a changing worldCard 1 of 4 Climate change around the world: In "Postcards From a World on Fire," 193 stories from individual countries show how climate change is reshaping reality everywhere, from dying coral reefs in Fiji to disappearing oases in Morocco and far, far beyond.

The role of our leaders: Writing at the end of 2020, Al Gore, the 45th vice president of the United States, found reasons for optimism in the Biden presidency, a feeling perhaps borne out by the passing of major climate legislation. That doesn't mean there haven't been criticisms. For example, Charles Harvey and Kurt House argue that subsidies for climate capture technology will ultimately be a waste.

The worst climate risks, mapped: In this feature, select a country, and we'll break down the climate hazards it faces. In the case of America, our maps, developed with experts, show where extreme heat is causing the most deaths.

What people can do: Justin Gillis and Hal Harvey describe the types of local activism that might be needed, while Saul Griffith points to how Australia shows the way on rooftop solar. Meanwhile, small changes at the office might be one good way to cut significant emissions, writes Carlos Gamarra.

It finds that virtually every child on the planet is exposed to at least one climate or environmental hazard right now. A staggering 850 million, about a third of all the world's children, are exposed to four or more climate or environmental hazards, including heat waves, cyclones, air pollution, flooding or water scarcity. A billion children, nearly half the children in the world, live in "extremely high risk" countries, the UNICEF researchers report.

This is the world being left to us. But there is still time to change our climate future. Around the world, our movement of young activists continues to grow.

In Bangladesh, Tahsin Uddin, 23, saw the impacts of climate change in his village and other coastal areas and was moved to action. He is passionate about climate education and has created a network of young journalists and educators to spread awareness, all while organizing cleanups of waterways teeming with plastic waste pollution.

In the Philippines, Mitzi Jonelle Tan, 23, has had to complete her homework by candlelight as typhoons raged outside and wiped out her community's electricity. She told us there were times she was afraid of drowning in her own bedroom as water flooded in. Now she is leading youth in her country to respond to the aftermath of those typhoons and other hazards through sharing food, water, clothes and support with the most affected communities.

In Zimbabwe, Nkosi Nyathi, 18, is worried about a potential food crisis if weather patterns continue. Heat waves made school a challenging experience for him and his peers. Now he speaks to leaders from around the world to demand the inclusion of young people in decisions that affect their future.

The fundamental goal of the adults in any society is to protect their young and do everything they can to leave a better world than the one they inherited. The current generation of adults, and those that came before, are failing at a global scale.

The Children's Climate Risk Index reveals a disturbing global inequity when it comes to the worst effects of climate change. Thirty-three countries, including the Central African Republic, Chad, Nigeria and Guinea, are considered extremely high-risk for children, but those countries collectively emit just 9 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions. The 10 countries with the highest emissions, including China, the United States, Russia and Japan, collectively account for nearly 70 percent of global emissions. And children in those higher-emitting states face lower risks: Only one of these countries, India, is ranked as extremely high-risk in the UNICEF report.

Many higher-risk countries are poorer nations from the global south, and it's there that people will be most impacted, despite contributing the least to the problem. We will not allow industrialized countries to duck responsibility for the suffering of children in other parts of the world. Governments, industry and the rest of the international community must work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as 195 nations committed to do in the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015.

We have less than 100 days until the U.N. Climate Change Conference, also known as COP26, in Glasgow. The world's climate scientists have made it clear that the time is now - we must act urgently to avoid the worst possible consequences. The world's young people stand with the scientists and will continue to sound the alarm.

We are in a crisis of crises. A pollution crisis. A climate crisis. A children's rights crisis. We will not allow the world to look away.

The authors are youth climate activists from Sweden, Mexico, Bangladesh and Kenya, working with the international youth-led Fridays For Future movement. They wrote the foreword for UNICEF's Children's Climate Risk Index.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: [email protected]

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Continue reading the main story

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | After Greta Thunberg's Strike, Adults Are Still Failing Children on Climate Change - The New York Times - OutLine TTS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Advertisement Continue reading the main storyOpinion Continue reading the main story Guest Essay This Is the World Being Left to Us by AdultsAug. 19, 2021 Credit...Illustration by The New York Times; Photograph by Pablo Blazquez Dominguez\Stringer Send any friend a story As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Interesting comparison to put carbon emissions into a user perspective fuelling efforts that make most sense -> tackle low hanging fruits #fantasticflyer #carbonneutral #carbonneutral #carbonfootprint

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should We Blame A Specific Generation for Climate Change?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Younger generations are often seen in the eyes of the older as being idealistic, younger generation commonly sees the older as being too traditionalist. How can we solve this misunderstanding?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
he late 1940s were about bombsites, rationing, loss and mourning, but amid the gloom a new generation was emerging. In the grim, grey aftermath of war, children were born on an unprecedented scale in a population explosion: the baby boomers - born between 1946 and the mid-60s - had arrived. It was time for a new life. It was time for the young to grow up with faith in a better tomorrow.

When we baby boomers reached adolescence, creating the teenager in the process, it was as if the floodlights had been switched on, revealing a colourful, contrary, anti-authoritarian Britain. In our teens, with rock'n'roll if not much cash, we were the lucky, cocky generation.

Anthropologist Helen Fisher inelegantly described the maturing of this huge postwar bulge in the population as "like a pig moving through a python", changing society as we grew older on a scale never known before. We challenged the Victorian puritanism, censorship, class snobbery and inhibitions of the establishment. Full employment put money in the pockets of managers and factory workers alike. In spanking new houses with inside lavatories and proper bathrooms, hire purchase allowed him (and less so, her) to spend, spend, spend as if, overnight, everyone had become a toff. It could only get better.

Yet today, "baby boomer" is a toxic phrase, shorthand for greed and selfishness, for denying the benefits we took for granted to subsequent generations, notably beleaguered millennials, who reached adulthood in the early years of this century. So, where did it all go so very wrong?

It may have been due partly to our irritating habit of hogging the cultural limelight, with constant references to the swinging 60s serenaded by endless revivals of Lazarus-like pop groups who refuse to die. But there are a much more serious set of charges, too. We were - and are - accused of sabotaging our children's future, hoarding power and money while expecting those with the least to foot the potentially hefty bills as we march towards our 90s.

Leading the flood of critics has been David Willetts, author in 2010 of The Pinch, a book that sparked a flood of furious debate. Lord Willetts, then a Conservative minister, is now chair of the Resolution Foundation thinktank. "The charge," he declared, "is that the boomers have been guilty of a monumental failure to protect the interests of future generations."

Next week, one jury will deliver its verdict: the Resolution Foundation's intergenerational commission publishes its groundbreaking two-year investigation into millennial Britain on 8 May. The commission rightly says that intergenerational fairness is a major issue, but so too are the troubling inequalities within the generations. "Intergenerational war doesn't reflect how people feel about the issues or how they live their lives as families," says Torsten Bell, director of the foundation.

The commission signals that it is time to remodel the welfare state, which was crafted at a time when a pension was only expected to last a handful of years before death took its toll. Young people are deeply anxious about housing, jobs and pensions, while those who are older are concerned about health, social care, the fragility of the welfare state - and the future of their own children.

"Everybody wants to fix this," says Bell. "If we want to keep our promises to the different generations - and maintain the welfare state - we have to think radically about how we do this."

Intergenerational cost of housing

The commission has already revealed a profound cross-generational pessimism about the prospects of the young. The escalator that for decades ensured the younger generation had a better standard of living than their parents has stalled - and that has ramifications for life. Britain - along with Greece - is now the most pessimistic among the advanced economic countries, a mood that has potentially catastrophic implications for a country's wellbeing and resilience.

"When an entire cohort is not succeeding, everyone understandably feels a real need to fight tooth and nail to keep what they've got. The rich are much better-suited to win that war," Bell warns. "That's a real challenge for social mobility, and a disaster for politics."

Pessimism is not new. In the 1970s and 80s, inflation reached 21%, three million people were on the dole, poverty was soaring and Thatcherism had laid waste to manufacturing and industry. On a full grant, and from a working-class background, I was one of the 8% who went to university, charged up with notions of (women's) liberation, revolution and an envy of Mary Quant's unaffordable wardrobe.

My best friend had left school at 16 and moved up the managerial ladder, earning what our mothers called "a good wage". Pessimism was the national trait but we all had hope. I was 28 and single when I put a deposit on a tiny flat; my parents were in their late 40s before they took out a hefty mortgage on a modest bungalow. That escalator in action.

Life, money and opportunities had an elasticity that they lack today. A minority of millennials are rich but the majority are definitely not, while almost two million older pensioners, mainly female - the silent generation - live in deep poverty. The Resolution Foundation has provided forensic detail of how this has come about - and why. A complex mix of reasons includes the financial crisis, austerity and reluctance by successive governments (albeit ones filled with baby boomers) to radically tackle the challenges of housing, health, social care, employment and a woefully deregulated market at a time when people are living so much longer - but no baby-boomer banditry. Politicians have failed to decide equitably, in this different climate, who pays and how - and what they receive in return.

We are facing a new set of problems," says Frances O'Grady, general secretary of the TUC and a member of the commission. "We have people with degrees doing Mickey Mouse jobs and young people who will have no occupational pension and no house to sell to see them through old age. That's not the fault of mum and dad. If we think that, we are tackling the wrong problems. It's not about redistributing the crumbs from the rich man's table but restoring fairness."

So, according to the foundation, what is life like for the average millennial, in and outside London? For some, including women, ethnic minorities and LGBT groups, progress has come in terms of rights and personal freedoms. However, even at a time when unemployment is at its lowest and inflation minimal, aspirations of having a home, a fulfilling job and a higher income than the generation before are being extinguished.

Only a third of millennials own their own home, compared with almost two-thirds of baby boomers at the same age. It will take a millennial on average 19 years to save for a deposit, compared with three years in the 1980s. A third of millennials will, it is predicted, have a lifetime of renting with less space, poorer conditions, longer commutes and more insecurity than the baby boomers experienced.

In the 1960s, those born before the second world war spent 8% of their income on housing - that has risen to almost a quarter of net income for millennials. Right-to-buy has reduced social housing stock - 55,000 homes sold in 10 years - and house building is at half the annual need required. At the same time, private landlords lack proper regulation, so families can be evicted at two months' notice, and rents can be astronomic.

Low wages are also endemic. Two out of five non-graduate jobs are filled by people with degrees, so the less qualified, who formerly went into proper apprenticeships, are pushed into self-employment, zero hours and agency work that suits some but not all. The proportion of low-paid work done by young men increased by 45% between 1993 and 2015-6. Millennials who changed jobs in their mid-20s enjoyed 14% pay rises, higher still if they moving around the country for work. But insecurity reduces the appetite for risk, so many are staying put, receiving minimal salary increases.

Although precise definitions differ, broadly speaking millennials are those people born between the early 1980s and the late 1990s. They are so called because they turned 18 in or after 2000. They are also collectively known as Generation Y

Thank you for your feedback.

"More and more young men have moved into the low-paid, part-time, service-sector jobs that women have traditionally done," Bell says. "They never expected to do that, and their dads didn't do it. If a measure of your self-esteem is how well you have done compared with your parents, that's a blow. The good news is that women's full-time employment prospects have significantly improved - but the goal wasn't to improve poor job options for women while making them bad for young men."

On current trends, given high rents, low wages, Brexit and, for some, the debt of university tuition fees, will millennials have sufficient funds in retirement? Under auto-enrolment, 5% of a wage by 2019 will go into a pension pot, but on a low income, will increasing numbers of millennials opt out? In several decades' time, millions of older people may be dependent on housing benefit, living in rented accommodation, and surviving on a state pension, which currently at £7,000 a year, is already not fit for purpose.

In contrast, some of us baby boomers, newly retired, are apparently living in an experiential paradise - cruising the globe, contemplating buying a second home - albeit dazed at how good pensions, secure employment and the fluke of buying at the outset of a period of rapid house inflation has catapulted us so much further, financially, than many of us expected to travel.

Some baby boomers are extremely wealthy - in assets. We have power insofar as, currently, we are more likely to vote than the young. But we also pay taxes, help with childcare, volunteer and subsidise our grown-up children. "Families are doing their bit," says Lord Willetts. "The state needs to as well."

The commission heard research carried out by Professor Karen Rowlingson, from the University of Birmingham, on the scale of support given by families. The middle classes, she says, pay for their grandchildren's education and children's housing; the working class take out loans and sell possessions to help with their children's debts and day-to-day living. It's self-help that further entrenches deep inequality.

"The younger generations, aged 20-45, make up the majority of the electorate. The older voters are dying off," says Rowlingson. "We can change policies and tackle this as a partnership between the generations."

According to the Resolution Foundation, the cost of education, health and social security as a slice of GDP is predicted to rise at today's prices by £24bn each year to 2030 and by £63bn a year to 2040. It's plain that the tax burden on young people, already struggling to match the living standards of older generations, has to ease.

Ending the triple lock that updates the state pension by the highest of annual inflation, earnings or 2.5% could see 700,000 more pensioners living in poverty by 2040, Age UK has warned. "It's not who gets the bigger pension," O'Grady says. "It's why no state pension is sufficient."

The report's proposals will be revealed next month. Options being considered include help with rental deposits, better regulation of the private rented sector, a re-evaluation of council tax (a family in a £100,000 house may pay five times more than a person living in a £1m property); a look at inheritance and a radical reform of property taxation to help first-time buyers.

The intergenerational commission's invaluable work exposes how urgently capitalism has to be brought under control. It's time to restore fairness to the contributory principle at the heart of a renewed welfare state, re-establish social justice and repair the damage done to confidence, trust, wellbeing and optimism by a situation where 90% of people manage on increasingly less, while the other 10% rapidly accrue more and more.

"Wealth differences also risk bleeding into other areas of life where they do not belong," Bell warns. "Wealth status could determine not only where you can live, but the education you can get, the risks you can take and the job you can do. Wealth is profoundly reshaping Britain."

Ed Lewis. Photograph: Karen Robinson/The Observer

Ed Lewis, 36, London
Lewis lives in a house-share with four other people while working fulltime for a campaigning organisation.

"I have lived in this shared house for three years now. I couldn't afford to rent on my own - I'm single, so renting with other people is what I expect for the future.

"I know a number of people in their 30s who are in a similar situation. The biggest frustration is the lack of any security and lack of control over the conditions I'm living in. We're subjected to the whims of the landlord, who is able to behave in a complacent way because of the power imbalance.

"It would be nice, as I approach my 40s, if I weren't in a state of dependence on another person. It's like when you have a room as a kid and you're dependent on your parents' permission over what you can do with it.

"I've never idealised home ownership, but I care about living somewhere where I can live as I want. The current housing system doesn't allow that. My line of work ties me to London, which means negotiating the crazy London housing market. For these reasons, I have got involved in private-renter activism. We need to change the balance of power between landlords and tenants."

Tom Merrett, 23, Durham
Merrett, who graduated with a master's degree in broadcast journalism from Sheffield University, works in a hotel on a zero-hours contract.

"Do I feel like my master's course was a waste of time? I ask myself that question a lot. We are told going to university is an investment and, once you got that piece of paper, there would be jobs waiting for you.

Then I thought a master's would make me stand out from the crowd, but even though there are jobs, each one is being scrambled over by hundreds of graduates.

"It's frustrating, when people say 'there will be an opportunity, you just need to keep trying', when you keep applying and keep getting knockbacks. When doors just aren't opening for you, it does make you think: has it been a worthwhile investment?

"I've been working on zero-hours contracts since I graduated in January. I won't know when I'm going to be working in the week or how regularly. I have no steady income, which makes planning for things difficult. More importantly, I just want to get on with my life, rather than stagnating.

"Fortunately, I've got an offer to start teaching abroad in August. It's ironic - my first proper job won't even be in the UK."

Nia. Photograph: WALES NEWS SERVICE

Nia, 26, Cardiff
Nia, who didn't want to give her last name, left university after a year and works on a zero-hours contract as a science communicator.

"People don't appreciate the constant pressure of zero-hours contracts, because it's so difficult to say no to your employers when you want to be the first person available when a shift comes up.

"It's a constant worry when there are months where I won't get much money at all. It varies so much month on month. Up until February, I was also on a zero-hours contract as a cleaner when my employers suddenly laid me off. They said 'we've found someone who can do it cheaper', and that was it. It really is as insecure as people think it is.

"The idea of ever owning a home sounds ridiculous. I can't imagine myself being in a position to afford one, even with a fulltime job. The best way for me to buy a house is for my parents to die, which is a horrible thing to say but really that's the only conceivable way.

People think of zero-hours jobs as a stop-gap, like stacking shelves until something better comes along, but I see my job as my career. While having a degree is not a particular advantage in my field, there are people I work with who have master's and PhDs, yet, like me, are earning just £8.25 an hour.""
Interviews by Alistair Thomas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Millennials are struggling. Is it the fault of the baby boomers?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
he late 1940s were about bombsites, rationing, loss and mourning, but amid the gloom a new generation was emerging. In the grim, grey aftermath of war, children were born on an unprecedented scale in a population explosion: the baby boomers - born between 1946 and the mid-60s - had arrived.

# data[].attributes.body
Ghosted by the American Dream: Younger generations are collectively sobering to the idea of the American Dream. But what is the alternative?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Don't trust anyone over 30."

It's a line made famous by '60s activist Jack Weinberg when a San Francisco Chronicle reporter interviewed him about the ongoing Free Speech Movement at the University of California, Berkeley.

Generational finger pointing is not a new concept, but it's been in the limelight lately with the rise of the "OK, Boomer" meme first circulating via social media app TikTok. The OK, Boomer catchphrase is used as a dismissive response to ideals, opinions and experiences of older generations when younger people find them outdated, irrelevant or harmful. The New York Times claimed the meme "marks the end of friendly generational relations."

That story produced a snowball effect of follow-ups, opinionated columns from people of all ages as well as hot takes on Twitter. Some argue the onslaught gave a meme that would normally fade into oblivion in a few weeks' time the power to harmfully define generations as combative and give way to lasting harm.

Sociologist and author Jennie Bristow of London told Next Avenue that she believes the generation war is an "artificial narrative constructed from above - by campaigners, policymakers, journalists - people who want to promote the idea that there's real inequality between the generations that needs to be addressed by taking resources from the old and giving them to the young."

Bristow researches generational relations and has published books like Baby Boomers and Generational Conflict, The Sociology of Generations and, most recently in 2019, Stop Mugging Grandma: The 'Generation Wars' and Why Boomer Blaming Won't Solve Anything.

In writing that last book, Bristow had to strongly consider all the reasons why "boomer blaming" exists (both in Britain and in the United States).

"The conclusion I've reached is that it's largely a symbolic discussion," she says. "It's not really about the baby boomers. It's more a way of society trying to work through anxiety about bigger issues like problems in the economy."

Bristow says discussions about economic distress used to happen through the lens of public spending, but now they're had through "misplaced" anxieties about older people.

Is the Boomer Blame Game Fair?

Seeing The New York Times and other publications "ascribe a political and important valiance to 'OK, Boomer'" inspired Bhaskar Sunkara, political writer and founder of democratic socialist magazine Jacobin, to write a column for The Guardian on why it's time to ditch the meme.

Sunkara's column shifts the spotlight to the extreme financial insecurity facing older Americans (half of those over 65 have less than $25,000 in savings and one in four have less than $1,000) and how if we must divide ourselves, a division by class makes more sense than by generations.

"My problem isn't with divisiveness and polarization in particular, I just think it should be in the direction of defending people who don't have a lot of power and wealth," he said in an interview with Next Avenue. "I think it's fair to blame particular people for doing certain things. Direct it at someone like Joe Biden or another big politician - Jeff Bezos or another big CEO."

Sunkara also directs boomer-blamers to recognize all that today's older Americans have given the country: the civil rights and peace movement and the first expansions of LGBTQ rights, for starters.

Bristow also argues for a reframing of this "us vs. them" conversation.

In her eyes, massive societal grievances should be boiled down to individual issues rather than individual generations.

"If you want to talk about the problem of housing, then let's talk about housing, not the problem of old people having big houses and assets," says Bristow.

She says generations are a social construct - useful mostly in the context of relationships with history and cultural moments. Made political, things like 'OK, Boomer' can become serious and dehumanizing, Bristow notes, leading our elders to further disenfranchisement.

But Paul Taylor, a boomer who recently turned 70, says the recent pushback from millennials and Generation Z is understandable, and even overdue. Taylor is a senior fellow at the advocacy nonprofit Encore.org and author of The Next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the Looming Generational Showdown.

In the book, he draws on Pew Research Center data (where he was formerly executive vice president) on generational gaps and inequities to paint a picture of where America is and where it's headed.

"When [baby boomers] went into the labor market, the national debt was less than one trillion dollars; it's now more than twenty-three trillion dollars," Taylor says. "This isn't exclusively a boomer issue, but my generation has been in the White House now for twenty-six years. We're leaving bills to children and grandchildren. We've been slow to address climate change."

He's not totally convinced it's productive to point fingers, though. And, like Sunkara, Taylor emphasizes the positive movement that came from boomers as well.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Regardless of whether the generational divide is real or a construct, fair or unfair, there are real dangers when generalizing about any cultural subset and assigning ultimate blame.

"If you accept the argument made about boomers, which is that they're a large generation that's entitled and they ask for more than their fair share... these same arguments have been used against millennials as well," Bristow says.

She believes the solution to the generational war is to stop fighting it.

"The more people are invited to see issues in terms of intergenerational conflict, the more [the conflict] picks up," Bristow says. "When young people are told constantly that their future has been taken away from them by older generations, it's not really surprising that they begin thinking that way."

Bristow points out that the 'OK, Boomer' narrative doesn't represent all younger people, evidenced by her experience as a senior lecturer at Canterbury Christ Church University. "[My students] are grumpy, but they don't see it as their grandmother's fault," she says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Boomer Blaming, Finger Pointing And The Generational Divide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Don't trust anyone over 30." It's a line made famous by '60s activist Jack Weinberg when a San Francisco Chronicle reporter interviewed him about the ongoing Free Speech Movement at the University of California, Berkeley. Generational finger pointing is not a new concept, but it's been in the limelight lately with the rise of the "OK, Boomer" meme first circulating via social media app TikTok.

# data[].attributes.body
What differing attitudes might different generations have about the environment?

# data[].attributes.body
How might these different views be a product of the circumstances that they are/were experiencing in their particular generation?

# data[].attributes.body
How are the different generations working together to resolve the environmental crisis? What kind of opportunities for collaboration or points of conflict exist?

# data[].attributes.body
How do the ideologies and policies of previous generations impact the lives of current generations? Identify both positive and negative impacts in these resources.

# data[].attributes.body
How culpable are previous generations for the challenges of today?

# data[].attributes.body
What might be a more effective alternative in addressing these issues?

# data[].attributes.body
Apology to future generations, the cause: current generations are more concerned about the progress, money is wha causes the destruction. Sarcastic, pessimistic opinion. Previous generations only really care about the progress of economy. Rather future generations care more of the environment that supports their lives and lives of other creatures

# data[].attributes.body
- generations are recognising that there is little use in pushing the blame to other generations when it comes to larger issues such as climate change
- they are working together to solve such issues and

# data[].attributes.body
current generations: treasures environmental resources less, prioritises economic growth
future generations: treasure natural resources due to lack of them by deforestation/climate change carried out by previous generations

# data[].attributes.body
- those in power/with funding, whether it be governments or private organisations, can consider investing more into certain initiatives to allow for sustainability of the measures + they can also look into placing more emphasis on issues such as climate change etc, especially since priorities have shifted between generations (ie. previous generations placed more priority on bread and butter issues like military defence and economic growth VS preceding generations, which have more capacity to think and put to action plans to slow the progress of certain detrimental issues)

# data[].attributes.body
Differences in the upbringing and context, generally the standard of living in previous generations were much lower compared to that of current generations, due to this there was always an emphasis on improving standard of living and this hunger to improve their lives blinded them from realising the side effects that their actions. Coupled with the lack of information in their times it may not be very justifiable to blame them

Conversly since current gen has experienced effects of the environmental degradations they value preserving the environment more

# data[].attributes.body
American dream- meritocracy and equal societal progress,made by baby boomer... Not what future generations want now, good intentions from boomer gen but future gen now see the "American dream" as materialistic success (maximising profit).

# data[].attributes.body
ideologies that they can achieve whatever they want, the idea of “American Dream” and creating your own future that stemmed from post-ww2 where there was little hope, the previous generations wanted future generations to have brighter lives than they had

positive impacts: spurred people to work hard and achieve what they want
negative impacts: when they did not achieve the American Dream/an ideal life they blamed it on the previous generation that gave them these ideas - leading to intergenerational rift

# data[].attributes.body
Ideas of the 'boomers' are failing, are not true. Societal issues stem from individuals not their generations, it's not fair to compare that younger generations problems with the older generations. On the flip side, older generations have a differing perspective on these ideas hence they are more slow to address the issues of today.

# data[].attributes.body
yes they are responsible to a large extent because all actions have consequences even though they may not be intended consequences. prev generations were fixated  on achieving their dreams and aspirations and did not think of the side effects.  e.g. environmental consequences were not considered during periods of rapid industrialisation

# data[].attributes.body
the different generations are coming to understand that finger pointing is futile in helping to solve environmental issues, and are starting to understand each other to try to make collaboration more productive and make an improved effort to try to solve the issues together.

# data[].attributes.body
yes they are responsible to a large extent because all actions have consequences even though they may not be intended consequences. prev generations were fixated  on achieving their dreams and aspirations and did not think of the side effects.  e.g. environmental consequences were not considered during rapid industrialisation