A recent Daily Telegraph article examined Britain’s growing state pension problem by comparing it with Slovakia, which has introduced reforms to make its pension system more affordable. The conclusion is clear. Britain faces rising pension costs, fewer working-age people to support retirees, and difficult political choices over taxation, borrowing and retirement age.

But the article raises a more fundamental question.

Why has the pension system become unsustainable in the first place?

The answer lies in the ending of the growth economy.

For most of the last century governments assumed that each generation would enjoy higher productivity, higher incomes and a larger workforce. Economic growth would generate enough tax revenue to support an expanding retired population. The system depended upon continuous expansion.

That expansion is now faltering. Energy is becoming more expensive to obtain, natural resources are under increasing pressure, debt has grown to extraordinary levels, and birth rates have fallen across much of Europe. Governments are trying to maintain promises that were made under conditions that no longer exist.

The result is predictable. Pension ages rise. Benefits come under pressure. Taxes increase. Governments borrow more. None of these measures addresses the underlying cause. They merely delay the adjustment.

Localism starts from a completely different understanding.

Instead of asking how central government can continue financing an ever more expensive welfare state, localism asks how people can recover the ability to provide more of life’s essentials within their own locality.

This is where the emerging wood economy becomes important.

As fossil fuels become more costly and less available, wood once again becomes a valuable local resource. Managed woodlands can provide building materials, fuel, furniture, tools, charcoal, compost, craft products and many other necessities. They also create meaningful work that cannot easily be moved elsewhere.

Older people have a particularly important place in such an economy. Many possess practical knowledge, traditional skills and life experience that can be passed on to younger generations. Their contribution is measured not only by paid employment but by teaching, mentoring, repairing, organising and strengthening the social fabric of the locality.

At the same time, local communities naturally provide much of the practical support that older people need – friendship, transport, meals, small repairs, shopping and companionship. These are things that no amount of central government spending can organise as effectively as neighbours who know one another.

The pension itself remains important. People who have contributed throughout their lives deserve financial security. But money alone cannot provide resilience. A pension paid

At the same time, local communities naturally provide much of the practical support that older people need – friendship, transport, meals, small repairs, shopping and companionship. These are things that no amount of central government spending can organise as effectively as neighbours who know one another.

The pension itself remains important. People who have contributed throughout their lives deserve financial security. But money alone cannot provide resilience. A pension paid into an isolated community with few local skills and little local production buys progressively less security as national systems come under strain.

A locality that produces more of its own essentials, values the contribution of every generation and shares responsibility for one another is far more resilient.

The pension debate is therefore about much more than retirement ages or Treasury budgets. It is about the future shape of society.

The growth economy assumed that security would come from expanding national wealth.

The local economy recognises that lasting security comes from productive localities, healthy woodlands, practical skills and strong human relationships.

The pension crisis is not simply a financial problem. It is another sign that Britain is moving from one economic age into another. Localism is not an escape from that transition. It is one of the few practical ways of living successfully within it.