To resent the cognitive dissonance that exists around climate change

Almost 100% of people are hypocrites when it comes to climate change, myself included. I drive 30 mins to work in a petrol car. Occasionally, I take the train. It's a 90 minute journey door to door factoring in getting from home to station and station to work. Factor in picking two children up from after school club and getting them home. That's the one compromise I can't make. I will go electric when I can afford to get a new car.

The few that genuinely priorise live sustainably have very quiet, simple lives, in small houses, tending allotments, using public transport. They are not the loud preachy types.

Our society and economy is build on people spending money too. That's a huge elephant in the room that if we reduce spending and consumption, all grew our own food, the economy would likely tank! We need to radically rethink how society is built true green revolution.

Man made climate change is a con.

The planet warms and cools in cycles. Nothing to do with us. Remember the medieval warming period?

They predicted an ice age that never happened so they changed the con to climate change as the climate does change, hourly actually.

They will meet in Davos or similar flying in by private jet with a convoy of 4 x 4’s to eat Wagu beef (flown in specially) to discuss the sacrifices and the money you have to make to change the temperature. They know it’s a con of course.

Historically people thrive during a warm periods and persish during cooler periods. That is a fact.

Especially if the Gulf Stream breaks down. We're very high up in latitude and if you look at Canada's climate (without Gulf Stream), that's the kind of cold we'll have to endure.

'Nobody cares' seems to be the general attitude among most people I know. It really does need a shift in thinking from higher up to move this forward. We have taken some small steps like having recycling bins and some very basic efforts to reduce single-use plastics but these are so minor in comparison to the big picture that it would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

The problem is that even if people want to do something individually, climate change is inevitable. Limiting global warming needs more action from western Governments and that will not happen any time soon. Short-termism is the issue here and that won't change. The Government needs to be seen to be doing something to appease the electorate but will always fall a long way short of doing anything that really matters.

In the UK, many people are under the misconception that global warming means the UK will get warmer. I hate to break the news to people, but it is very possible that the UK will suffer another ice age, so if you live in the north, you can expect a lot more cold winters, more high winds and arctic conditions!

The way society has evolved I think means that people are more time poor. Often 2 parents are working ft. They are making choices based on convenience and time available. And most labour saving devices that previous generations didn't have (washing machines, dishwashers, microwaves, vacuum cleaners etc) would have some carbon impact. Internet connection and a device to use has become a necessity rather than a luxury. And because of built in obsolescence, those need replacing every few years. Even white goods don't seem to last as long as previous generations.

I get the train to work (I work in London) because its the quickest way to get there. In terms of cost if I lift shared with DH , even taking into account the congestion charge and parking there would be hardly any difference, but it takes a lot longer, and also means we'd have to sync our work hours which often isn't possible. We walk to the train station because its 12 minutes away. Other people need to drive if they live in the next village or have children they are dropping at nursery or breakfast club, because bus services are minimal. Other longer journeys I make would be more expensive and/or more time consuming using public transport.

Nearly every eco alternative to the norm has a cost in terms of time or money or both. In my previous post I talked about the refill shop in the next town. If I went there I would a) spend a lot more money and b) spend more time on shopping because it only sells a limited selection of things. Ethical or eco clothes are usually a lot more expensive if bought new, electric cars are often more expensive than ICE counterparts and fewer available second hand, like a pp said heat pumps are significantly more expensive, solar panels are expensive at the outset even if they save money in the long run.

I sort-of agree with you, but also acknowledge that I'm one of those people who goes green when it suits me. I drive an electric car - I could take the train to work but that would quadruple my commuting time and I CBA. I shop from B-Corp brands but I also happily eat meat. I refuse to buy from Shein and Temu but shop on Amazon all the time. I looked up train prices for a recent family visit, would have been very happy to take the train, but it was stupidly expensive so we drove instead. I take multiple flights every year for work and leisure and enjoy taking the DC to far-flung destinations.

So sue me. My NDNs are cycling, camping vegans and are very happy with their choices.

I agree. I'm trying to reduce our carbon footprint in various ways. But by no means perfect due to the capitalist consumerist culture we are locked in to.

To cut climate change we need far fewer people on this earth. That's the dreadful truth.

Agree, the eco choice for almost everything costs either time, money or both. We have a refill shop locally, almost everything there (dry food) to hand-wash to bamboo toothbrushes is about 3 times as expensive as the "standard" version. I generally try to walk whenever possible ...but I have that choice because I live in a town with a train service, and have teen kids that can walk the same speed and distance as me , and none of us have disabilities.

The thing about saying india or China etc should do something about climate change is a bit hypocritical. They aren't churning out goods for themselves, they're supplying the world with phones, tech, clothes, cars that we in the UK are buying! In our house we don't tend to replace tech very often, DH phone is at least 4 years old, mine and DD are about 3 years old, my laptop is 5 years old, the tv probably the same, one if our cars is 18 years old, but we eat meat, we are flying to go on holiday, and DD buys a lot of clothes

Fewer flights and more rail journeys. I'm in. Or would be if it were possible. Rail and ferries between Britain and Ireland used to be in sync for example. Bit of a minefield now. Twice I've had to stay in a B+B overnight while travelling as a foot passenger due to various mishaps. There is no real pleasure in driving or flying lately. But we are 'prodded' in that direction.

Well, they'll be bought up by people who don't need to rent... developers looking to flip, better off younger couples & yes prices will drop 5 or 10% and the Mail will scream "Labour have wrecked the UK"

Meanwhile, the poor will be forced into temp accommodation, benefits bill increases as the Govt is forced to give out more in Housing support, councils worse off as they pay out more in B&B and council tax support.

All these netzero policies are going to hit the poor.

It's really quite convenient that being "green" these days involves buying a huge shiny new car and driving one's children to school every single day. Hilarious.

While the country disappears around us, replaced by new build housing estates to house millions more people every year.

It's irrelevant that the birth rate is falling in the UK; the population is growing at speed due to immigration and the birth rate still being too high.

How are people to get around then, @DdraigGoch ?

No proper public transport outside cities

Mumsnet is full of this sort of thing:

“I’ve done my bit by not having any children - I’m not giving up any of my four foreign holidays a year. My emissions are still lower than yours.”

”There’s no point in the UK cutting its emissions unless China cuts theirs. Yes, I suppose many of the things I buy are made in China, but it’s still their pollution.”

”I eat red meat every day - it’s better for the environment than eating avocados and quinoa which have been flown in by private jet”.

“We do our bit by recycling. Our family NEEDS three cars for work (me, DH and eldest DC), so no, we won’t give one up. We work hard and deserve our treats and holidays.”

”It’s the climate activists’ fault for being annoying. Now I go out of my way to spite them”.

I think the real issue is the lack of joined-up thinking and in the case of disasters, bad management overall. What I mean by that: it's really hard to get a full overview of what the real CO2 impact of a product is - and other environmental impact. For example, the electric car emits no particles or CO2 however if you think of all the crap that goes into producing its batteries, the human cost of mining those rare earth minerals (they don't come from countries with great human rights records, to say the least), and the total CO2 footprint that goes into producing them, I'm not convinced they're such a win for the planet. (This is a question by the way, I'd love to hear from knowledgeable posters that they are a great solution, but I'm personally not sure).

@StandFirm they're an improvement on ICE cars (probably about a third to half of the emissions per mile, once you include embodied emissions), but still far more damaging than not owning a car in the first place. There's also the other negatives associated with cars to think about: congestion, land use, collisions, microplastics from tyres... none of them are solved by BEVs. Mass car ownership simply isn't sustainable.

It’s us, we are the problem.

the problem with most of the policies to achieve this, even the ones that don't go far enough hugely disproportionally affect the poor.

it is the rural poor that need the 15-20 year old diesel car, they can't afford even an second hand electric or even a more modern ULEZ compliant car they can't use the bus as there are only 4 a day and don't run early or late enough to use for commuting, and even if they did they go to the nearest big town not the place where they actually work. the urban poor that will have mouldy flats as they can't afford the increase in fuel prices due to carbon tax, both groups will suffer with increased food prices.

Even with electric cars if you live in a flat or house where the only parking is on the street you can't get a EV point at your house; public chargers cost a lot more per charge, so the only people that can afford the cheaper home EV points are those with more money to have private parking. It has always cost more to be poor

while some may argue that the increase in food / fuel prices is the same for everyone it affects the poor more; if your take home is £1600 a month and your bare bones expenditure is 1550 leaving 50 for anything pleasureable or an emergency; an increase of 10% in costs leaves you with an overspend of £105 so you have to eat less food or have less heating than you need because you are already at the level where you can't cut anything else out

however if your take home is £4000 and your expenditure is £3000 you have £1000 left for fun but when costs go up by 10% you still have £600 spare so porportionally though you have same increase in costs the effect on your finances is a bit less fun not debt or depravation

Oh no, if the landlords sell up I suppose the houses will stand empty for evermore. Such a shame 😢

Yes the new EPC coming will based on electric heating rather than gas.

HP or an electric boiler system, instead of gas, and to get to a C, it will need in many cases, additional insulation, that can be very expensive in an older property.

Yes the tenant will get a warmer house, possibly cheaper bills too but their rent will go up to pay for this or they get evicted if the LL sells.

Once again, those at the bottom will get hit, meanwhile the MC in a house with an EPC of D or even E carry on as before.

I think people can’t get to grips with this and there’s also general cynicism. I’ve noticed on our local Next Door, that the bottom line is, if people are feeling a bit chilly around here, then it’s apparently blindingly obvious that global warming is a fiction.

Everyone should do their bit. Everyone should probably give up some stuff; everyone should have some small pleasures, whilst trying not to consume egregiously. A balance, trending downwards. With governments taking action on the big stuff and targeting societal resources to work that really matters, like teaching and caring and innovation and farming and (some) manufacturing.

In our family we do what we can. We have one child but tbh I’d have had another if we’d been able to. Happy with one now. We don’t fly, we stopped seven years ago. We’re mostly vegetarian. We have solar panels. We one EV (better than ICE but still problematic I guess) and one diesel vehicle (would love this to be EV too but probably makes more sense overall to run that one into the ground). We don’t do fast fashion but we do have pets.

As pp have said, it’s all a balance, a compromise. I personally feel we are now doing pretty much everything we can within our means and our current housing and vehicles etc. It would take moving or govt grants for us to do more (getting a heat pump or swapping a vehicle for example). But that’s where the big stuff comes in - there’s only so much the individual or family can do before legislation or central planning has to kick in.

Not having billionaires would help. Other than that - make some choices and don’t be a dick.

I don't think the stop having children idea is good. And we don't really want to impose a ban on the number of children allowed like China did

You don't need to impose bans. You just need to make reliable contraception and safe abortion available to as many women worldwide as possible and let women decide how many children they would like.

Around 45% of all pregnancies in the UK are unintended. Slightly more in the US. That's not to say every unintended pregnancy is unwanted, but if we had a pill without side effects for example or better long-acting contraceptives we would probably see a natural drop in the birth rate.

This was found to be the case in many countries in Asia and South America (although not Africa for some reason!)

Average Brit = 13 tonnes
Average American = 21 tonnes
Average Malawian = 0.2 tonnes

The thing is that while a large Malawian family has a tiny footprint today, surely we all aspire for them to be able to achieve a comfortable lifestyle, as the rest of the world takes for granted. Which would increase their carbon footprint. So at the same time that we look at reducing our own footprints, we also need to be helping places like Malawi develop in a clean way - using development funding to build Concentrated Solar Power for example. In addition we do need to proactively look to avoid a population explosion as development makes death rates fall drastically while birth rates remain high. Equality between the sexes is key to this, educated women with career opportunities have fewer kids.

Oh, and for comparison:
Roman Abramovich = 33,859 tonnes

That one man's emissions equate to the emissions of a small town in the UK. It's time to take a stand against superyachts.

Bickering and point scoring isn’t going to help. We need a massive positive pulling together global change. The issue is our whole society is predicated on economic growth and consumption that funds the taxes which funds our services. It’s going to be incredibly difficult to move away from that. It’s an economic issue. Surely we should be smart enough to be able to fix it.

I agree with the point that politicians are too short termist and just want to curry favour with the electorate.

I'm quite happy to complain about anyone driving when a reasonable alternative exists.

(I get to draw the "reasonable" line, and I don't expect many people to agree with my strict implementation)