To wonder how the general public would actually react if the government took drastic climate change measures?

[tequilasunrises]

I’m talking about measures that would severely restrict people’s ability to live how they choose. For example, implanting a one/two child policy, heavy restrictions on animal products and car and air travel mileage.

From reading threads on here and talking to people in real life it is clear that many people agree something needs to be done to stop climate change but aren’t willing to make the bigger sacrifices.

So, who thinks there would be uproar and who thinks the public would be behind extreme measures?

I’d be very sad to have my travel opportunities limited but would be behind it for the greater good.

They need to invest in different types of air travel, for one. Pretty sure Mr.Musk could come up with a commercially affordable electric plane engine quite rapidly. But the sunk cost fallacy would prevent many airlines from buying again until they retired old planes.

They are already restricting family size to one or two with most families. By now pushing those reliant on child benefit and credits in to poverty if they have more than two. Which fair enough 🤷 I agree with. But there should also be incentives rather than punishments to limit the number of children you have.

They need to clamp down seriously on plastics and mass production of shit. It may create jobs but those jobs are not generally here in the UK. For example happy meal toy production is probably creating jobs for half of China and India.

Andysbestadventure

But the sunk cost fallacy would prevent many airlines from buying again until they retired old planes.

It has been mentioned loads of times with reference to the environment but if the government started to make the travel companies pay tax on aircraft fuel they would be forced to change to new tech or go broke.

The easiest way would be a carbon tax with a personal allowance. That way, if a corporation or family decide they really wanted that long flight or polluting car, they can choose to pay more or put their allowance towards it.

How would that work for people who live rurally and have no choice but to drive, though?

I think there are small/simple things that could be done that might have a bigger effect in changing people's mindset.

The congestion charge has been quite a good one. I grew up in prime commuter belt territory in the mid 1990s, yet knew quite a few people in senior jobs (parents of friends etc) who would drive into central London along the M4 or A30 every day despite living within walking distance of a station. Why? Because their nice company car was so comfortable, the out-of-pocket cost was lower, they had free parking at work...fundamentally, just because they could. These were fit forty-and fifty somethings, by the way - no disabilities. Even at the time I thought they were a bit lazy! At least the congestion charge has gone some way to changing that mindset.

I also think that employers should be incentivised to offer jobs to those living within a certain distance or offering homeworking by lower rates of ERNI contributions for those posts. Yes, it would be a bit complicated to implement but not impossible. It is madness when you think that a lot of employers are based Zone 2-3, yet they are employing people who are based in Zone 2-3 on the other side of London. Specialist roles, perhaps not. But if you are recruiting an administrator or receptionist, why not recruit locally?

...and before I am flamed by those living in rural areas - the distance factor could be adjusted to reflect local population density. So in a rural area, what would be deemed to be local is a wider zone than in an urban area.

People work in the airline industry and it is a big employer where I live

If any government seriously tried implanting a one/two child policy, heavy restrictions on animal products and car and air travel mileage, then that government would have to be a North Korean government.
It is just impossible-and, basically, a silly question.
Democratic governments must be more subtle-good luck to them.

To be fair the child element of UC is limited to 2 children

People would fucking hate it if the government actually put in place drastic measures.

It would have to be economically based. High taxes for carbon burning activities. Maybe a personal carbon budget. The rich would still do what they want though but it might stop the endless weekend away flights and work travel which could be avoid through the use of technology.

Everyone likes the whole plastic bag issue because it’s a relatively easy one to pretend you’re doing something about. It’s been simplified to ‘plastic bags bad other things good’ without considering the environmental impact of the other alternatives. Plastic - stored responsibly is a hell of a lot better for the environment that making more paper.

How would that work for people who live rurally and have no choice but to drive, though?
There would of course be ‘losers’ with any policy designed to reduce carbon emissions. In this case though the family could change to a lower emission car, or maybe think about relocating somewhere that didn’t require a long personal car journey to reach.

@AnnaSteen

“I get some mashed potato now that comes in a biodegradable plastic tray with carboard cover. All foods should be packaged as such”

Mashed potato doesn’t need any packaging at all!!! Buy loose potatoes and mash them!

Any such government would get voted out, and unless everyone, worldwide does it there's no point and yes I do think why should I when others don't.

On plastic waste, why not require supermarkets to provide paper bags for fruit and veg why allow shrink wrapped coconuts. Why require a charge for bags then allow random plastic tat. Last week I brought shopping bags for food to M&S and on a whim bought flowers too. They charged me for a flower bag but gave me some free plastic tat toy that immediately went in the bin !

There would of course be ‘losers’ with any policy designed to reduce carbon emissions. In this case though the family could change to a lower emission car, or maybe think about relocating somewhere that didn’t require a long personal car journey to reach.

There is a great assumption that everyone who lives in rural areas is rich. Even in the shire counties there is surprising amounts of social housing outside the towns (and it's already unpopular!).

In very rural areas there is actually a lot of poverty.

You cannot penalise people who have no choice for using a car, it's just ridiculous. Not everyone can live in London. Not everyone can afford to buy an electric car.

Everyone likes the whole plastic bag issue because it’s a relatively easy one to pretend you’re doing something about. It’s been simplified to ‘plastic bags bad other things good’ without considering the environmental impact of the other alternatives. Plastic - stored responsibly is a hell of a lot better for the environment that making more paper.

^^couldnt agree more, it's a drop in the ocean in more ways than one.

I think taxing beef and lamb should be the start, and for people to be encouraged to consume less animal products. Plus limiting the number of air miles. I think also a massive investment in public transport. If my area had a system like London, I’d ditch my car and use buses. Round here they don’t cover many routes plus they are very expensive. It’s cheaper to drive.

I think the air miles is a great idea. And maybe you could 'buy' air miles off someone else. We're too skint to fly anywhere so we would welcome this 🤣

if I remember rightly the government use 1.5 hours as an acceptable commute at the job centre now?
Relocating isn’t the answer when your dragging kids along for the journey. You also don’t have jobs for life anymore, so you could be moving frequently.

We can’t live in the low carbon way our grandparents did, it would be lovely, shopping locally, shopping frequently to save waste, work within walking distance, starting and retiring at the same workplace. But lives aren’t like that now.

There would of course be ‘losers’ with any policy designed to reduce carbon emissions. In this case though the family could change to a lower emission car, or maybe think about relocating somewhere that didn’t require a long personal car journey to reach.

The naivety in this statement is gobsmacking.

Who is going to pay for these families to relocate to cities and towns (which are more expensive, hence why lots of families buy rurally)? Where are the children going to go to school? Where will they live? Will the public transport system in place support a huge influx of families?

Rural poverty is a big problem - lots of towns have nothing because the money just isn't there. Where we are, we've just had to fight for funding to repair the park in town because everything there is broken. There's no indoor entertainment for children, no cinema, no pool - if you want any of those you need to either spend £££ on a train and then walk/catch the bus, or drive.

I'm glad you think people are choosing to live rurally and drive for hours for shits and giggles though

@adaline. I am still working that one out! Perhaps a greater carbon allowance or government cash to smooth out the rural disadvantages (a minimum legal level of public transport or help to buy a hybrid?). It's a tricky one as everything seems to be geared towards urban living, whilst there are huge stretches of the countryside where even a bus a day is a luxury. I would like to see those communities get more support instead of the bloody assumption that everyone has to move to the town. Perhaps a bit of planning, a community hub and a lot more connectivity, so even if you do commute, you should be able to work from home on a regular basis.

1.5 hours commute is ridiculous. I know people do it, but you are sacrificing another day a week.

Stopping building those stupid estates in the arse end of nowhere would be a good start. Put some thought into where these people will buy food, go to the GPs, go to school and how many cars are already on the overcrowded road.

People generally support measures that won't affect themselves too much, like supporting restrictions on cars when they live somewhere with decent public transport or no flying when they have no need to fly.
Often there is a conflict it would be better for environment if we bought fewer good quality clothes in natural fabrics and washed them less frequently fashion industry uses more resources than all the flying and shipping In the world.
If you suggest on MN that actually towels don't need washing after a single use, that the a stage household should not use more than a bottle of bleach a year as it is a.) Not necessary and b.) So bad for the environment
But for most people the real crux is it is one rule for rich and famous and another for the rest of us. Actions speak louder than words so I simply do not believe that anyone who truly cares about planet would fly several times a year, they would video conference, they would be happy to be seen in the same outfit several times, they would not promote expensive ranges of woo products normally devised to benefit their own pockets. Too many celebs, royalty etc say they care but their actions say the complete opposite like Prince Harry talking barefoot then using a private jet, there are several scheduled flights a week where he was going. Gwyneth with her virtue signalling Goop products etc etc even people like Bill Gates who are quite philanthropic but make sure you need to keep updating their products you just can't keep using your old system as they no longer work on windows 7 , it is almost impossible to keep using an old iPhone as it is slowed down, if they cared about planet repairing them would-be cost effective and old operating systems would continue to be supported, a lot of tech is very environmentally damaging but people are convinced they need it, but actually a lot of it is keeping up with trends ,does anyone actually need a Alexa
The other conflict is for the environment people need to stop buying stuff they don't need and reuse repair what they have until no viable, but the economy depends on people buying stuff they don't need
Is deforestation to grow avocados really any better than deforestation for meat?
It should not be cheaper to throw away your vacuum cleaner and buy new than to get it repaired, I think all small items like this should have parts readily available for at least 10 years after model is discontinued, it should not use health and safety falsely to prevent repairs or make things sealed so only a franchise rather than a competent person can repair. There should be a ban on companies building in software to stop generic replacements

Planting trees - I have a grove of scots pines near my house. Not one has regenerated in the last 10 years because rabbits, voles, mice, deer eat the new juicy saplings.
If you read the book Wilding it explains how trees in the past regenerated in dense bracken and thorn, where animals can't reach them, nowadays we use a plastic tunnel and /or wire mesh. Just sticking an acorn or whatever in the ground is not likely to work unless it is in a spot remote from wildlife.
But in a clump of blackthorn it has a much better chance.

There could be a market for 'repairable' goods such as vacuum cleaners where there is less electronics and more mechanical parts which can be replaced. I had to chuck my old favourite vacuum cleaner as the black rubber bands (good ones which don't keep snapping) were no longer available
Come on Mr Dyson - an opportunity for you!

I don't understand the hand wringing over children. The birth rate and fertility rate are both below replacement level across most of Europe.
Most people limit themselves to 1 or 2 at most. So why the emphasis on legislation/enforced limit? I simply don't understand it. Not in the developed world.
What good would a legal limit do?

I wouldn't agree with air miles restriction, simply because I don't think it's fair.
However, a carbon footprint allowance per person to use as they please would be fine.
If you fancy a child, you have allowance for it. If you don't you use your allowance on other things.
Otherwise it would be greatly unfair that someone who already produces 58 tons, so 29 tons per parent per year, could go and still have all other allowances like childfree. IYKWIM.
My 2 hour return flight only creates approx 360kg of emissions per my seat. 🤷