By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jan 9 2024 – As the signs of population aging are crystal clear and widely available, many countries are taking steps to address the far-reaching effects of that momentous demographic trend. A notable exception is the United States, a country that seems neither ready nor willing to deal with the aging of its population.

America’s government and its citizens appear ill-prepared to address the daunting consequences of population aging for the country’s economy, workforce and entitlement programs. Among those challenging consequences are the rising costs of programs for the elderly, the need for financial aid and long-term care for many older people and the dwindling financial resources of elderly households.

Many countries, including the United States, are well along in the demographic aging of their populations. While some countries, such as France, Germany, Italy, Japan and South Korea, have median ages above 40 years, other countries, including China, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, have median ages of nearly 40 years (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

America’s elected officials tend to avoid addressing population aging. It seems that by ignoring or paying little attention to population aging, its many weighty consequences will diminish or simply go away.

The consequences of population aging for America’s federal budget, its economy, workforce and the overall well-being of its citizens are not imaginary and will not go away by simply ignoring them. On the contrary, the aging of America’s population is expected to have mounting effects on government programs, businesses, healthcare institutions, communities, families and individuals

However, the consequences of population aging for America’s federal budget, its economy, workforce and the overall well-being of its citizens are not imaginary and will not go away by simply ignoring them. On the contrary, the aging of America’s population is expected to have mounting effects on government programs, businesses, healthcare institutions, communities, families and individuals.

In ten years, for example, the U.S. federal government is expected to be spending half its budget on those aged 65 years or older. That spending will be used to support elderly Americans largely for health care and retirement benefits. Without sufficient government assistance, many elderly Americans will have to forgo needed care or rely on the uncertain assistance and care from family and friends.

While a secure retirement is a widespread desire across America, the financial resources of most Americans are not sufficient to cover their retirement expenses. Among households headed by someone 55 years and older, nearly half of them lack some form of retirement savings. Also, close to 30 percent of those who are retired or nearing retirement do not have retirement savings or a defined benefit plan.

In addition, the health conditions of America’s elderly are both worrisome and costly. About 80 percent of Americans 65 or older have at least one chronic condition, with about 68 percent having two or more.

It is estimated that nearly a half of elderly Americans are affected by arthritis, a quarter have some type of cancer and a fifth have diabetes. A third of the elderly have cognitive issues with approximately half of them having dementia.

Millions of older Americans are struggling with health challenges and increasing numbers are in need of caregiving services. Many elderly Americans also find it challenging to obtain or pay for the additional services they need as they age.

It is estimated that approximately 70 percent of U.S. adults aged 65 years and older will require long-care at some point, with the average length of stay in long-term care about three years. In 2021, the average annual costs of long-term care in America ranged between $35,000 and $108,000.

The median age of the U.S. population, which was about 27 years in 1965, has reached a record high of nearly 40 years. The median age of America’s population is continuing to rise and is projected to be 43 years by mid-century.

In addition, the proportion of America’s population age 65 years or older is also expected to continue rising. Whereas approximately 9 percent of the U.S. population was 65 years or older in 1965 when the Medicare program was established, by 2022 the proportion had almost doubled to 17 percent. That proportion is expected to nearly double again by the century’s close when approximately one in three Americans will be 65 years or older (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

Furthermore, the U.S. will face noteworthy demographic aging turning points in the near future. Beginning in 2030, for example, all of America’s baby boomers will be older than 65 years. Also, in 2034 the share of America’s population age 65 years or older is expected to surpass that of children under age 18 year for the first time in the country’s history.

A major demographic force behind the aging of populations is low fertility. Whereas America’s fertility rate was nearly three births per woman in 1965, today it has declined to nearly a half child below the replacement level at 1.7 births per woman. Moreover, the country’s fertility levels are expected to remain well below the replacement level throughout the remainder of the century.

Increasing longevity among the elderly is also contributing to the aging of America’s population. U.S. life expectancies for males and females at age 65 years have risen markedly over the past sixty years. From 13 and 16 years for males and females in 1965, life expectancies at age 65 rose to 16 and 19 years by 2000 and further increased by 2022 to approximately 18 and 21 years, respectively. By mid-century, U.S. life expectancies at age 65 for males and females are expected to reach 20 and 22 years, respectively (Figure 3).

Source: U.S. Social Security Administration.

America’s major government programs for the elderly are being seriously affected by population aging. As a result of the increase in both the absolute and relative numbers of the elderly, the two largest programs, Medicare and Social Security, are rapidly approaching insolvency, which is expected in 6 and 13 years, respectively.

The U.S. Congress needs to act responsibly to address the expected funding imbalances and the insolvencies in those two programs. Not doing so would lead to across-the-board benefit cuts or abrupt changes to benefits or tax levels.

Democrats are by and large committed to maintaining funding for Social Security and Medicare, programs that were established by the democratic administrations of President Franklin Roosevelt and President Lyndon Johnson, respectively. The Democrats believe that all Americans have the right to a secure and healthy retirement and are committed to preserving Social Security and Medicare for future generations.

Over the years, public opinion polls have repeatedly demonstrated overwhelming support for those two programs. For example, approximately 80 percent of Americans support Social Security and oppose reducing benefits, and 70 percent are against increasing premiums for people enrolled in Medicare.

Republicans, in contrast, are reluctant to raise taxes and have resisted increasing funding for the government’s major entitlement programs. They claim that with Social Security and Medicare facing insolvency if cuts to benefits and costs are not made, those two programs will not be available for future generations. Republicans in general prefer the private sector, freedom of choice and individual responsibility, such as private retirement investment accounts and a voucher system for private health insurance.

Besides congressional actions, educational and community programs are needed to encourage responsible behaviors among Americans in preparing for and during old age. Men and women need to adopt behavior, take action and develop habits early on in their lives that promote their economic security, personal health and overall well-being in their retirement years.

In sum, the United States seems neither ready nor willing to deal with the aging of its population. But demography doesn’t care. As the U.S. population continues to become older over the coming years, America’s elected officials, the private sector, social institutions, communities, families and individuals will be obliged to cope with the inevitable, momentous and far-reaching consequences of population aging.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer and a former director of the United Nations Population Division. He is the author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Population Levels, Trends, and Differentials”.

By Alison Kentish
SAINT LUCIA , Jan 9 2024 – As a child on the French-Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, Yamide Dagnet dreamed of launching rockets into space.

She stuck to science, discovering her path in chemical engineering. She became a scientist focused on critical reactions to solving real-world problems like improving water quality in the United Kingdom.

Her attention to detail, observation skills, and grounding in science eventually led her to a career in climate negotiations and climate justice.

As Director of Climate Justice at the Open Society Foundations (OSF), she is committed to the organization’s cause of expediting a fair, transparent, low-carbon, and resilient transition in our societies.

Reflecting on her journey, she acknowledges that the task is daunting, but she remains optimistic for the future. Her roots as an islander fuel her drive to fight for a more just and resilient world.

“Vulnerable countries, including Islanders, have played a critical role in shaping negotiations and the outcome of climate negotiations over time by bringing both tangible experience and a moral voice to this issue while also bringing solutions. Even as small Islanders, we always felt that we were big on solutions,” she said in a sit-down with IPS.

The move from chemical engineering to climate justice director may be non-traditional, but for Dagnet, it was a transition hinged on applying her principles and skills from the lab to the policymaking table.

“I kept the spirit of problem-solving in an unexpected career move. I see negotiations and the diplomatic world not as chemical reactions among products but as chemical reactions among people—a people alchemy,” she said.

The Changing Nature of Climate Negotiations

When Dagnet entered the field of climate negotiations, the focus was predominantly technical, she told IPS. Things have changed since then. The talks have morphed into a more political sphere, increasingly shaped by geopolitical dynamics. It is a shift that Dagnet says requires an understanding of the diverse interests of countries at the negotiating table.

“When I joined the negotiations, we were just getting into the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol,” she said, adding, “Over time, everything that would affect geopolitics would affect the climate negotiations as well. That was really key to creating trust and understanding for landing the Paris Agreement itself. The Paris Agreement was no longer just a climate agreement. It had become a socio-economic and environmental agreement that had to be contextualized.”

“Now that we’re getting into the implementation phase again of a complex agreement, to reach that breakthrough, we have to understand the different interests of countries—200 countries, 200 different interests.”

The composition of the annual climate talks is also different, reflecting the change from a technical gathering to one with more glaring political hues.

“There’s been what had started to be an exercise, and a gathering of initiated diplomats and technocrats expanded to bring all hands on deck for implementation. More from the private sector, more from civil society, and more from indigenous people, women, and youth. So, there has been a progression in terms of inclusion, but also more interests and a greater risk of corporate capture over time.”

Climate Negotiations, then the Open Society Foundations

While working as a chemical engineer in the UK, Dagnet was involved in water quality. It was an opportunity to ensure that products in contact with drinking water were safe and of the highest standards. It was during that time, already working with inspectors, that she became more familiar with the nexus between climate and water, along with the safety plans that needed to be put in place to mitigate the impacts of climate change on drinking needs.

In 2007, she was then detached to France’s Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development, in their international division, where she gained valuable experience leading delegations, establishing cooperation, and twinning programs between France and Eastern European countries. The primary goal was to enhance the capacity of countries seeking access to the European Union. It was a defining experience for her, helping her to test different means of capacity building to reflect what could be most effective and sustainable.

It made for a smooth transition to the climate arena.

“I was privileged to join the UK climate team at a time when the UK was a climate leader—enacting the first climate change bill, setting up the first climate change committee, and relying on much data and evidence emerging from the UK greenhouse gas inventory I was responsible for. Being the UK deputy focal point for the IPCC at a time when the IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize. Joining the UK climate delegation under UNFCCC at the turning point of the negotiations to shape the Paris Agreement,” she said.

“While negotiating for the interests of the UK, I was in a very unique and diverse delegation that had a comprehensive outreach strategy with different countries that were also committed to coalition building outside and within the negotiations. I was keen to first have the opportunity to use my problem-solving skills and the fact that I wanted to really look into solutions and put those solutions into action, not just for the UK, not just for the EU, but for the rest of the world, including the most vulnerable countries.”

The opportunity came to join an internationally renowned, US-based think tank, the World Resources Institute, in 2012 and advance robust research, analysis, and policy recommendations for designing a new rule-based climate regime.

“It’s convening power was really interesting, and for me, making sure that you do not produce creative solutions that are put on a shelf, but how to really look at the power and interaction with different stakeholders, not just governments, but the faith community, different civil society constituencies, how to really, again, build bridges and test ideas, to really come up with something that has legitimacy.”

To do that, Dagnet organized several consortiums. The task was not easy, but it was necessary.

“I learned the power of consortiums. First, it’s more difficult to work in a consortium because it’s actually a platform of negotiations where you don’t navigate just one mindset, one view, one way of addressing an issue; but by creating the right consortium, you bring the legitimacy and credibility that represent different views from different countries, which in the end really helped us to get the traction and inference necessary to shape a meaningful agreement.”

After almost a decade, the Open Society Foundations was a natural fit for her knowledge and passions to work as a funder to empower the field, support new ideas and analysis, take grassroots and legal actions, and engage in diplomatic and advocacy efforts. Her priority has been supporting just resilient outcomes, especially in neglected areas like adaptation to climate change and politically sensitive issues like losses and damage. How you face climate impacts you cannot even adapt to—that will cost lives and livelihoods and generate irreversible economic and non-economic (e.g., cultural, social) damages. Another area of focus was the implications of a just energy and industrial transition, ensuring equitable use and deployment of critical minerals, minimizing unintended environmental adverse effects and social or labor abuse, while spurring the ability for resource-rich mineral countries to move up the manufacturing ladder. All of these are matters of justice, equity, and human rights. Ensuring accountability and inclusion within national and international processes like the COP was critical.

COP28

The former climate negotiator was in Dubai, UAE, for the 2023 climate talks.

Like many, she welcomes the landmark announcement of the operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund on the first day of COP as a hard-won victory. “Two hundred countries, including a petrol state, have agreed to move away from fossil fuels and to operationalize a loss and damage fund that has taken so long to be established,” she said. “Now that we’ve got a roadmap, we have an initial capitalization, even if it only represents less than 1 percent of what is really needed.”

She, however, says that there is no place for complacency. Those breakthroughs are decades away, still little, very late, and lacking the necessary pace needed to effect the change needed.

Moreover, Dagnet says the new climate deals have shortcomings. She is particularly concerned about some of the controversial technologies mentioned in the agreements, which lack sufficient safeguards and measures to minimize unintended adverse impacts on frontline communities and the environment. For instance, “the reference to transition fuels, which, without the right accountability mechanisms, could be overused and used as a license to delay some of the radical changes that need to be done.”

Looking Forward

The next year is poised to be an interesting one on the international climate scene, with an eye on how the commitments on energy and roadmap to build resilience will be transformed into tangible actions and how ongoing campaigns to reform the global finance infrastructure will pan out.

“2024 is really shaping as being about the means of implementation to keep 1.5 alive and build resilience within that threshold. We know that the UAE, Azerbaijan, and Brazil committed to the delivery of a financial framework through their “road map to mission 1.5 C. There needs to be a strong mobilization of different stakeholders to support, inform, shape those frameworks, and make them a reality,” says Dagnet.

She took the opportunity to express her appreciation to all partners, especially frontline communities, who often risk their lives in this climate change battle. “Without them, we would not have secured these hard-won breakthroughs.”

Dagnet expressed her hopes that their efforts will be redoubled and rewarded in the future.

“We need to pull up our sleeves. There’s a lot of work to do, which can only be effective if we create and harness the synergies and intersections between climate and health, climate and nature, and climate and trade.

And as for Dagnet’s work—no matter what, “I think I will remain a climate and social justice avenger.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Ben Phillips
ROME, Jan 9 2024 – All through this week, leading up to January 15th, the world will commemorate Martin Luther King. In a world as wounded as ours is today, the lessons of his life’s work offer a vital opportunity for healing.

But the opportunity to hear his message continues to be obstructed: too many of the soundbites of TV pundits and the tweets of politicians are, once again, not distilling the insights of Dr King, but are serving instead to obscure a library of wisdom behind wall-to-wall repetition of the same few lines, extracted from their context, of one speech.

This is not a mistake, it is a tactic, and we owe it not only to the legacy of Dr King but to the future of our world to ensure that his authentic message is shared.

The true message of Martin Luther King is not a saccharine call for quietude or acceptance, but an insistence on being, as he put it, “maladjusted to injustice.” It represents not an idle optimism that things will get better but a determined commitment to collective action as the only route to progress.

When Dr King said “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice”, he didn’t mean this process is automatic; as he noted, “social progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of people.”

And he was clear that advancement of progress requires the coming together of mass movements, “organizing our strength into compelling power so that government cannot elude our demands.”

Children from a dozen countries met with the President of the General Assembly and toured the United Nations on a federal holiday in the United States honouring the late civil rights leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Martin Luther King Jr. 17 January 2023. Credit: Paulina Kubiak, United Nations

Justice, Dr King taught, is never given, it is only ever won. This always involves having the courage to confront power. Indeed, he noted, the greatest stumbling block to progress is not the implacable opponent but those who claim to support change but are “more devoted to order than justice.” As he put it, “frankly I have yet to engage in a direct action movement that was ‘well-timed’ in the view of those who have not suffered unduly; this ‘wait!’ has almost always meant ‘never.’”

When the civil rights movement’s 1962 Operation Breadbasket challenged companies to increase the share of profits going to black workers and communities, it was only after the movement showed that they could successfully organize a boycott that those companies, in Dr King’s words, “the next day were talking nice, were very humble, and [later] we signed the agreement.” As he noted when challenged by “moderates” who asked why he needed to organize, “we have not made a single gain without determined pressure…freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

Advancing progress, he emphasized, involves challenging public opinion too. Organizers cannot be mere “thermometers” who “record popular opinion” but need to be “thermostats” who work to “transform the mores of society”. In 1966, for example, a Gallup Opinion poll showed that Dr King was viewed unfavourably by 63 per cent of Americans, but by 2011 that figure had fallen to only four per cent.

Often, people read the current consensus view back into history and assume that Dr King was always a mainstream figure, and imagine, falsely, that change comes from people and movements who don’t ever offend anyone.

Dr King’s vision of justice was a full one. It called not only for the scrapping of segregation, but for taking on “the triple prong sickness of racism, excessive materialism and militarism.” He challenged the “economic conditions that take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few” and noted that “true compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar, it understands that an edifice which produces beggars, needs restructuring.”

He spoke out against war not only for having “left youth maimed and mutilated” but for having also “impaired the United Nations, exacerbated the hatreds between continents, frustrated development, contributed to the forces of reaction, and strengthened the military-industrial complex.”

He noted how “speaking out against war has not gone without criticisms, there are those who tell me that I should stick with civil rights, and stay in my place.” But he insisted that he would “keep these issues mixed because they are mixed. We must see that justice is indivisible, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

When I went to Dr King’s memorial in Atlanta I did so to pay my respects at his tomb. But arriving at the King Center I found a vibrant hub of practical learning, at which activists and organizers working for justice were revisiting Dr King’s work and writings not as history that is past but as a set of tools to help understand, and act, in the present.

Together, we reflected not only on his profoundly radical philosophy, but also on his strategies and tactics for advancing transformational change. Conversations with Dr King’s inspirational daughter, Bernice, were focused not on her father’s work alone; instead, she asked us what changes we were working for, and how we were working to advance them.

This year, on 10th January, the King Center is hosting a Global Summit, a series of practical conversations accessible to everyone, for free, online. I’m honoured to be panelist. It is open for sign ups here.

“Those who love peace,” noted Dr King, “must learn to organize as effectively as those who love war.” And he even guided us how.

Ben Phillips is the author of How to Fight Inequality, Communications Director of UNAIDS, and a panelist at the King Center Global Summit on 10th January.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);