To resent the cognitive dissonance that exists around climate change

There are so many things that could be done that would be supported by the vast majority of people; things like demanding an end to built in obsolescence for example. I mean who really wants to replace their hob or washing machine every couple of years as opposed to every 20 years, so the CEO can buy another Rolex? Making gestures and choices no matter how small do add up and change our relationship to our natural world from an narcissistic one to a more reciprocal one. Indigenous tribes intuitively understand the interconnectedness of all living things and are caretakers of their environments. Neo-liberal capitalism sells us a lie that we don't need connection or society and this is harming us all. A return to socially responsible capitalism is doable and does not require a regression to stone-age ways of living.

We buy a lot from China for example but realistically the only thing that reduces that is something like a tariff and that’s being floated elsewhere but it’s economically harmful

Do people really want a reduction in cheaper goods and increase in prices?

Exactly. Blaming poor people in India and China who never had a car, never take planes, rarely eat meat, dont buy clothes and shoes every month is so distasteful when it's the rich that are causing the most climate change. The figures show that.

Absolutely. I am anti car, but I CAN be because I'm well off enough to live near the centre of a small city. I can walk/cycle everywhere, and taxis are plentiful on the rare occasions that I can't. Being anti car is definitely an indicator of privilege, which is awful.

we contribute a very very very tiny percentage in this country but saying that the bus services ran hourly in my village for years,since last year they have gone from hourly to every 15 minutes!big double deckers that are never full!.we have a station 2 minutes away,the mind boggles.

There is NOTHING that one individual can do. It has to be driven by globally coordinated legislation.

We are manipulated to focus on nonsense like choosing an environmentally friendly mascara so that we can feel like we're "helping" when the steps that will actually make a difference are the only things that will make a difference, but are too big for governments to imagine or coordinate on -

banning:

• almost ALL private cars/car production and (replacing with affordable, electric, functioning public transport and enhancing/restoring rail networks globally)
• air travel - we should not be able to fly anywhere, really.
• fast fashion - you should never be able to buy a garment that has not been ethically and sustainably produced, and we need to dramatically raise the bar on that.

reducing:

• fossil fuel consumption to 25% - 50% of current levels at any cost.

But we can't coordinate on it globally, and nobody is motivated to do anything. So we buy environmentally friendly mascara and say "isn't it terrible what's happening in California".

Untrue. The carbon footprint of someone in eg the USA is many, many multiples larger than someone in eg Chad. The problem lies with the overconsumption of individuals in wealthy countries.

The population argument is, however, an easy way to pass the buck. "It's not my problem- it's all those stupid people in developing countries who keep breeding!"

As a matter of fact, the birthrate has plummeted pretty much everywhere except for Sub Saharan Africa in recent decades. The "problem" now is that people are living longer.

This exactly. I think most of the a ti car people live in London or Manchester with loads of transport options

Yanbu. We are all guilty to some extent.
China is pumping out crap because people in the west buy it.

Able bodied people should be walking more, even carrying shopping home. That keeps people fit (better for the NHS) and cuts down on emissions.

I would switch to more train and bus travel but both these services are almost completely unusable.

Example: Bus to work. 10 minute walk to bus stop. Bus stop has no sides, so potential to have to stand in the rain. Bus may or may not turn up at the correct time. It's expensive - about £5 for a day rider. There may not be anywhere to sit. It's dirty and crowded. Takes 40 mins to get close to work stopping at every stop, and then its another 5 mins walk to the office. Because of the bus schedule, I'm at work a bit too early. 55 mins total.

Car to work. 15 minute comfortable drive door to door.

Who on earth would chose the bus in this instance if they didn't need to? Working hours are long, and no one has this sort of time free. I try to only use my car when needed but honestly OP what is the alternative?

Agree. The current government keeps going on about growth. Our economies cannot go on growing indefinitely- we live on a finite planet. We are already bumping up against the limits of the resources we are using- I believe this is why Western economies are stalling- because we've got as big and bloated as we can physically get already.

I can't worry about climate change when we're about to witness a new nuclear arms race, potential nuclear proliferation and regional wars that could potentially expand.

I'm not sure if cognitive dissonance is the correct term.

The problem is that "Joanna and Nicola" (not particularly comfortable with the casual misogyny here, but...) are acting selfishly but entirely rationally.

Their children would be far safer and have better future prospects in a world without SUVs. However, in a world with SUVs their parents choosing not to have one has no measurable benefit to their children. If they are involved in a road traffic accident they could be disadvantaged from not being in one.

I'm not defending SUVs. I don't have a large car and have never had a large car. I'm just saying that it's not necessary cognitive dissonance.

If we want to change things (as we must) we must understand why people make the decisions they do. Appealing to people to act selflessly has not worked to date and there is no indication it will work in future.

The single largest individual impact we can all make is to have fewer children. One person who takes 5 transatlantic flights per year, eats meat and drives an ICE vehicle is still likely to have a significantly smaller carbon footprint than 2 car less non-flying vegans. A recent estimate puts the amount of CO2 generated by a typical western human at 58.6 tonnes per year. Meat-eating generates around 0.8 tonnes, using a car generates c.2.4 tonnes and a roundtrip transatlantic flight generates c.1.6 tonnes.

On a global level, supporting initiatives that enable women to control their fertility would reduce carbon emissions. I'm not talking about coercive population control measures - just access to contraception and abortion and healthcare initiatives that reduce child mortality. These measures both improve lives and have a measurable impact on carbon generation.

If we really want to make an impact on climate change (and it may already be too late) we need to start thinking big and global. We also need to start thinking about how we as a planet adapt to climate change. How are we going to deal with mass migration from affected areas and global food production?

YANBU at all OP. "Oh, it's OK for me to take 10 flights a year because I recycle." "Oh, I neeed a SUV because I like sitting higher up"

Then the defensiveness starts, and the bullshit justifications, and all the "Well, if you have children you can't lecture anyone about climate change actually. Gotcha!!" 🙄

the reason China has such a high footprint is because we keep buying stuff from China and we want it cheap not green

Don't pass the buck

Please Don't give up because every little fraction of a degree shaved off temperature rises really matters

And every person who normalises low carbon living will be moving society towards a low carbon future - the more people live low carbon lives the more government, business and your neighbours will be influenced

Yes the cognitive dissonance is huge. The willingness to pretend nothing unusual is happening.

But people fro need more help and support to know what to do and how to do it

Such a strange thing though that many of the best climate saving actions - eat less meat and walk more - don't just benefit the climate but make people happier and healthier and wealthier ... argh .. short and long term gains

Agree with posters mentioning China, there is absolutely no point in us doing anything until they sort themselves out. No point at all.

Cognitive dissonance is very real. Most people say they are doing their bit as they recycle and how many people scoffed at Bojo when he said the best thing was not to create the waste in the first place. Most People will do the bits they would do anyway and potentially a little extra like taking plastic bags to the supermarket. Just like we banned plastic straws and cotton buds and hey presto that sorted it

We are a so called nation of animal lovers but we eat animals and their products. People want to believe that animals have a great life and are humanely killed but won’t watch how that is done or look at the conditions a lot of these animals live in. But they love animals so much whilst eating a battery chicken sandwich.

I have just given up because I feel that me buying second hand clothes on eBay and walking to work is a drop in the ocean compared to what factories are doing across the world. And it pisses me off that I try and then other people don't give shit and just carry on guilt free. I think the brain boxes of the world need to get together to find a solution instead of fossil fuels and plastic.

I wouldn't choose that cost for anyone (kids on bikes getting injured or killed by drivers on busy roads) - and I suspect most people feel the same.

A more palatable cost would be to spend money on better public transport, safe bike lanes and so on.

People selling their disco sports and getting an electric car won't help the environment. Using that disco sport until it dies, then getting a new car is better overall.

Walking to school rather than driving is better.

While electric cars are better for emissions at point if use... where is that electricity coming from? Is the power station itself as green as possible?

Most peoples thinking is not very joined up and the political will is not there because implementing the policies necessary to make a difference will be extremely unpopular.

For example the person in the street thinks they are being a great environmentalist by putting yogurt pots in the recycling, but what is really causing climate change are things like heating your house to 20C 24/7 and going on holiday which produces masses of CO2. Neither of which people are willing to cut down on.

If the government did really want to tackle climate change it would probably introduce higher flight taxes and more taxes on energy bills. At which point people would probably scream "holiday tax" and the government would probably promptly get voted out of office.

Climate change is going to hit us whatever. Because reorganising our lifestyles in time just can't be managed politically.

I haven't eaten meat for almost 50 years.oddly enough,as a child in the 50s 60s my late father wouldn't allow aerosols because he said we were damaging the ozone layer and would all fry from radiation poisoning. Perhaps if we had left the hole, the greenhouse gases could have escaped!

Great post and I totally agree. Governments have to make and enforce change. It’s unrealistic to expect individuals to do this in a way that makes a difference, especially when the benefits may seem distant.

But the short-term thinking created by the election cycle means no government will ever make the necessary, unpopular changes.