About a year ago, the television presenter Simon Reeve did a one-man show in my home town. He entertained the audience with his tales of adventure in the world’s wildest places. But while all this was good fun, there was a serious side too to his performance: getting us to engage collectively with the most vital of questions … What can we do to save the planet?

This question brings to mind the usual stuff that we hear about who we work for, lobbying our politicians, and – at an individual level – adapting our diets, reining in our appetites for stuff and travel, insulating our homes … But the point that Reeve made during Q&A that night, quite forcibly, was one that gets less attention: pensioners need to engage actively in where their pension money goes.

I remembered this talk when the chancellor Rachel Reeves unveiled her budget a couple of weeks ago, on 26 November. That budget may best be remembered for the furore over whether she mislead the public about the state of public finances, in order to lay the ground for tax rises. But whether it transpires that there is an annual surplus or annual deficit of a few billion pounds this year, we are still faced with the following stark reality. Total government debt is close to £3000 billion, broadly comparable with national GDP, and – discounting the prospects of global revolution or extinction – this will be the case for many years to come. Paying the interest on that debt costs more than national spend on education.

Debt, or rather debt service, seriously hampers government activity.

And this is where pensions come in. Because those of us who are lucky enough to have reasonable pensions are part of the problem. About a third of government debt is held by pension funds. If we pensioners were willing to accept lower returns on government bonds, the impact on government activity would be significant. If we increased our demand for bonds, yields would fall. The government could then afford, as just one example amongst many desperate needs, to spend significantly more on education.

The pension industry seems to have got stuck in the following cycle. Pensioners tend to rely on their financial advisers to grow their pension pots. They might well avoid certain sectors or regions with the worst records on human rights or health, but for the most part pensioners are relatively passive. Advisers feel obliged to find good rates of return, which pensioners come to expect. Advisers are largely remunerated on a percentage basis, which adds a personal financial incentive to get the best returns for their clients. That includes attractive yields on bonds.

I am not sure this is inevitable. We are creatures of habit. It’s become habitual to expect our pension providers to put financial returns first (albeit with the above caveat about certain no-go sectors or regions). There is an entirely plausible future in which pensioners and their providers put ethical and environmental considerations first and financial returns second. Not last – I am not saying returns don’t matter at all – but second.

What would it take? Just that we pensioners ask our providers/advisers to put more of our pension money into certain sectors, products and industries. That in so doing we are not deterred by instances of greenwash or malpractice, because we don’t need to be rocket scientists to know broadly what those sectors and industries are, or to understand that a few bad apples don’t characterize the entire crop. And perhaps for advisers and fund managers to be remunerated more on a fixed basis than a percentage one.

Of course, Reeve had nature restoration and protection in mind; I don’t suppose he was thinking more widely about human rights, or government bonds, or long-term public projects, or essential infrastructure. But the same principle applies.

It seems very doable. If only we lucky pensioners can tweak our mindset and get on the front foot with our financial advisers.