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.

I don't agree with that. People are aware. What's more visible on these threads is that people are 1)lost and 2)resigned because even if whole UK suddenly changes, it will be like a spit in the ocean.
That's how it feels.

I don’t think people are aware how serious and how soon it’s all going to happen though. There’s going to be a lot of densely populated countries that are going to be uninhabitable within a decade. Does everyone really think that life will just carry on as normal when that happens?

I don’t think people are aware how serious and how soon it’s all going to happen though

I think a lot of people are aware but they know there's very little they can actually do.

Even if the the whole of the UK changed their lifestyles, it's a drop in the ocean compared to what's happening in other countries. Our individual impact on the climate is minuscule compared to companies like Starbucks or Amazon. What use is it if Sue Smith washes out her yogurt pots and cycles to work when Joe Bloggs has to fly to America twice a week for his job?

Maybe people think that even if some countries become uninhabitable it won’t affect the U.K./America/Europe?

So a case of “I’m alright Jack”? Combined with general sticking of head in the sand and not sure what to do/if they can make a difference.

So a person thinks that them as an individual giving up using single use plastic forks for lunch won’t make a difference. And as things stand they’re right. So why don’t the govt ban them, along with stuff like bin bags, all plastic bags, etc.

@allthegins do you really think my post was about racism?

@ToTryThisJustOnce I know! Carbon offsetting is really not the solution. It is specially hard for people whose families live abroad. Flying is just so convenient ☹️ and so hard for me to replace, this is why I am open to suggestions.

VivaLeBeaver

So a case of “I’m alright Jack”? Combined with general sticking of head in the sand and not sure what to do/if they can make a difference.

Maybe its a case of 'how am I going to get to work if my car is banned?'

Its all fine talking about what people could or should do, but its not so easy in practice.

In order for the vast majority of these changes to come about the government must put some sort of infrastructure in place.

Around us they are building 2000 + houses per yer, but no schools, Drs, dentists, hospitals etc. and its exactly the same with this, in order for any change to come about there must be something to replace it.

Manufacturers make profits or go out of business. If they had to replace plastic bags and containers with something else because no one was buying the plastic stuff, then they would.
Waitrose have veg bags made from potato starch, my magazine arrives through the post in a cellulose bag. It's possible to change. By not buying the stuff in plastic they will definitely change or go out of business but if everyone assumes they can't make a difference it will continue.

But you often have little choice to buy certain things wrapped in plastic as it's what all shops do.

Would it be worth having a thread in existing manifestations of climate change?

Blue green algae killing people's dogs for example.

Blue green algae killing people's dogs for example.

Surely owning a dog in itself is bad for the environment as they eat meat?

Most of human existence is bad for the environment. Pet ownership included.
Dogs don't need to eat meat though.
Cats do.

What I was meaning was that it's been linked directly to climate change and it might bring things home to people who don't think things through to the degree of realising that pet ownership has an environmental impact.

Surely a good goal is to raise awareness of most people so most people take action of some kind.

I don’t care if we die out. I think it would actually be better for the planet. The earth will slowly repair itself.

Im not sure why food would be bland. Nobody is going to suggest that there should be no imported goods at all.

For example its quite possible to make a delicious bolognese with garlic bread with UK produced food. garlic grows happily here as will basil and other herbs. Its just seasonal. Garlic stores well for months though and basil dries.

I don’t care if we die out. I think it would actually be better for the planet. The earth will slowly repair itself

Do you not realise that almost all wildlife will die as well including nearly all mammals if climate change gets so bad we can’t save ourselves?

60% of wildlife has disappeared in the last 70 years ffs.

Sticking to climate change and only climate change the government’s necessary actions over the next decade or so are pretty clear.

A) shift all local electricity production to renewables and/or batteries ASAP
B) collaborate on multi national electricity grids to help with matching supply and demand from a range of renewable sources
C) In a few years time ban the sale of vehicles with internal combustion engines and gradually increase taxes on existing ones until they become a niche interest. Invest in electricity charging/hydrogen fuel infrastructure: incentivise bicycles/walking/public transport/ride sharing/car sharing - whichever is most appropriate locally. For some people private possession of a zero emissions vehicle will remain the best option.
D) collaborate internationally on aviation fuel taxation. This is only going to work if you get the US on board so pick a moment when an amenable administration is in power and pounce.
E) engage with international initiatives on active climate modification in an open minded, well informed but non-credulous way.
F) support female education and access to contraception world wide.

A) and B) will make electricity and heating somewhat more expensive at least in the short term. Whether people accept this depends on whether their incomes are adequately supported and whether the Daily Mail/Nigel Farage works up a head of steam on the subject.
C) will cause some expense for some people. Political impact as above
D) flying gets more expensive: that’s the actual point. If it’s a worldwide effort then people will just have to lump it, which is sad where it means seeing loved ones less often but genuinely unavoidable.
E) it all depends
F) no downsides from a UK POV, but populist politicians in some countries do object to western conspiracies interfering with “their” women to reduce “their” population.

I agree that food doesn’t have to be bland. Lightweight non-perishable foodstuffs that can be transported by ship (ie almost all spices) have a negligible carbon footprint.

That's good to hear about the spices. I actually like lentils but served plain and boiled would be pretty grim.

Can I add E:
Force sporting events to be organised sensibly (so for example 2 London clubs and their fans don't have to be flown to Russia or wherever it was this year for a game that could have been played quite easily in erm.... London)

I mean G 🤦🏻‍♀️

@Teateaandmoretea you can't easily do that. No one knows who will be in final and these things are organised years beforehand for a reason.

It sounds a lot easier to me than stopping people going on holiday.....

Where there is a will there is a way.

But mainly there isn't a will as this thread shows. Everyone's carbon footprint is more important than others for some reason or another.

Hithere12 As people have probably already said the Earth has had five mass extinctions where on average 80% of all life is wiped out.
Mammals are the result because we didn’t stand a chance whilst dinosaurs were still around.

I would say there’s pretty much zero chance human behaviour will change,

I think there would be outrage, but drastic action is needed. People are not changing their habits quickly enough voluntarily, so we need to legislate. Our politicians need to be brave and the rest of us need to suck it up.

SnuggyBuggy.
Do you not relies that most lentil are grown in Canada and India and turkey.
The largest exporter of lentils is Canada so there is a good chance that if you go check the pack of lentils in the back of your cupboard it will say produced in Canada.
So why you might think you are making a difference by not eating that leg of welsh lamb you are not.

Lentils are also transported slowly and efficiently by ship in dehydrated form so have a relatively low carbon footprint. Ships are really really low energy (although their non-CO2 pollutants are still high) and can be made even more so.