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.

All those saying “corporations” need to act you so realise they are entirely led by us the consumers? If we stop buying and take direct action they have to respond.

Problem is that the biggest sinners in emissions are energy providers. People can't easily stop taking energy. And people around the world still don't have green options as much as we need.
It's not 1 holiday abroad what's killing us. It's coal production and subsequent coal use and such which are causing absolute majority of emissions.
I am not saying don't do anything, but it does feel like if you spit into the ocean🤷 No difference.

I'm thinking how I would be affected straight off.

1. I wouldn't be able to live in my large village. No bus route to get anywhere never mind to the office.
2. I go to court out of town on an almost daily basis. Travel time on a bus would be silly. Loads of lawyers travelling by bus. Our time funded by the client or legal aid. Perhaps they'll do court hearings by Skype instead.
3. No local school. Have to travel. Can't walk it's 6 miles on dual carriageway. Synchronising a finish time at court to fit with finish time at school and buses from court to school then another back to the village. Definitely don't exist at the moment.

God I hate public transport (planes/trains) at the best of times.

Anyone who doesn't live in a city knows what I'm talking about here.

If they were going to be brutal about it we will revert back to the 1800's. No doubt. None of us could travel for work, social or otherwise. You would have to live where you worked. Miners houses for miners type of thing.

The disabled would be handing back the keys to their cars too.

Would there be any benefits for child free people or would I have same restriction as the couple with 4 kids?

100% agree that there should be more home working available. Plenty of people do jobs that can easily be done anywhere. DH and I commute together and used to both WFH on Fridays until his company banned it. Now he has to go in and that’s one extra car on the road when it wouldn’t be otherwise. Multiply that by the millions of people in office jobs and you can see how much of an impact universal WFH could be!

If the child limit was restricted (I can see some benefits to that) you can bet your bottom dollar abortion will sky rocket.

I don't think the majority UK would do so based on the sex of the child (many of us like and appreciate girls) but due to disabilities etc. A country that needs to be careful with its resources will not have cash to care for those who can't financially contribute to society in the same way a non-disabled person could.

Rationing of much we take for granted.

Supermarkets could start by enclosing their fridge sections for one thing. They use a huge amount of energy pumping frigid air into the aisles.

I already work from home full time, so no saving there (though that uses heating fuel that could otherwise be shared).

We are gradually trying to go veggie but gut issues and autism are hampering it.

I’ve flown about six times in my life. The only effect is that I and my family have missed out. Can I have some unused air credits for previous green behaviour?

I suspect we’d really need to shoot the dog and cats if we were doing this properly. And I don’t want to.

Sadly I think there's very little chance of any difference being made now. The UK could decide to tax us all heavily on flights, driving cars, having kids etc but what difference would it make? The Google conference thing recently just shows it- some of the world's richest people flying in and driving about to harp on about climate change. We could all eat nothing but berries and wipe out the entire population but it'd make no difference. Just the example above about motor racing- watch any F1 programme and you have cars, hundreds of people being moved from country to country every fortnight. Celebrities attending on jets, and so on. Look at the Kardashians and their constant stream of cars and flying because they can. They're just the ones who are upfront and we see it, there are hundreds and hundreds of billionaires/ millionaires the world over who are doing the same day in, day out. We can recycle, insist upon less plastic packaging etc but it's a drop in the ocean.

I would be thrilled if the government was to bring in drastic measures to combat climate change. We need to change before we destroy our planet irrevocably.

No way would the public stand for this. Look at the number of people willing to rip up our EU membership because they want more powerful hoovers and light bulbs.

Chuckling at 'latest liberal bandwagon'

I think business travel should be the first to be restricted, like the example of a pp whose DH does a transatlantic flight every week. Hopefully his employer is doing carbon offsetting.

There's a good couple of threads here about how climate change is impacting upon different regions in continental USA: twitter.com/chriscmooney/status/1161285608104431616?s=20

An idea I have is to link household carbon credits to taxation levels - taking into account travel, energy use & sourcing, food consumption etc. Then we all have decisions to make.
Will need huge, structural change across the country. The technological solutions can be there, but it relies on the willingness of humans to implement it, at a cost to our daily convenience and comfort.
Ergo, we're fucked.

The one child policy in China has led to selective abortions of female foetuses and a corresponding rise in the number of boy’s being born. It also led to girls being abandoned in orphanages, where they lived in terrible conditions.

And how would you enforce it? Forced terminations? Fining parents who have an unauthorised child?

I do get that we need to act, but given the amount of industrial pollution produced by some countries who seem to have zero intention of cutting their pollution/emissions it seems to me that this should be the priority because pretty much anything we in the west can do will be like using a teaspoon to empty a lake.

On the other hand (picks fence splinters out of butt), there are changes we can all make without having to radically change society or our way of life, and we should be making these changes.

If the government hit big businesses with laws to reduce climate change which is where it really needs to happen, I think the public would be extremely pleased.

Exactly this. It's great that we're all doing our bit, and I think that should continue, but the impact is sweet f all compared to what big business is doing. If they aren't forced to change their practices then what we all do as individuals, whilst admirable, is pretty pointless.

Also, whoever said Australia has banned plastic bags - untrue. Don't know who told you that. They are used here all the time. We are well behind the UK in this respect.

I'd like to see an absolute right to put solar and PV panels on your roof. At present you need planning consent and no chance if you live in a conservation area as I do. If everyone did it the price of solar units would come down (they are uneconomic at the moment since the subsidies were removed) and the need to generate electricity would be reduced. Something like that is going to have to happen anyway because we can't generate enough electricity to meet our targets.

I'd also like to see an absolute right to work from home if you work in an office. It is a real hangover from Victorian times that you need to travel to your work. Most of us office workers can work perfectly well via email and Skype. I accept this does not apply to all jobs but it certainly applies to a lot.

Time we had networks of pedestrian only street and bicycle only streets too. IMO cycle lanes don't make it safe enough to cycle on busy roads so I won't be doing it. I would on segregated streets though. I do think pedestrians and cyclists are best kept apart though as you do get some seriously dangerous (male) cyclists on the shred paths locally.

Flying is the worst thing any one of us can do. We all need to stop now.

Procreating is the worst thing any one of us can do, have you stopped it or not done it then?

I had to seek medical treatment for my child abroad. We had to fly. I'd have done whatever I had to do to get to him and/or get him that treatment and sorry, but using a solar-powered yacht wasn't available or feasible.

Flying's just become the new carbs/sugar of the climate change agenda.

Planes and cars are going nowhere, we're not going to go back to horses and buggies and twin-oar banks on longships, folks.

I predict Brexit and the inevitable recession and US - UK trade deal will send us well and truly down shit creek without a paddle wrt turning things around.

We're screwed.

I agree- our annual holidays, commuting to work is the least of our problems. It's a drop in the ocean. It will only make a difference if government policies for big businesses are rolled out worldwide, not just in the UK. There are many countries who aren't interested in doing anything about climate change, the most powerful country in the world currently has a president who denies there is any problem. Until that is sorted our government can make little laws about single use plastic, less children, tax flying, working from home more etc but it won't make the huge changes we need.

@JamesBlonde1 I know plenty of lawyers, and even judges, who travel to court regularly by train or bus. I am not sure why you find that idea so astonishing.

I do think every newbuild or application for any planning work should have to meet environmental conditions, green roofs or solar panels. Every development needs an environmental assessment with homes made for existing wildlife, hedges not fences encouraged, hedgehog holes in all fences that sort of thing.
Houses having to meet tougher standards (insulation, rain water recovery).

Nevertwerk perhaps they live on a bus/train route.

I live 4 miles from the nearest bus stop and 10 miles from the nearest train station.

Being in the office and being told to get to court to represent someone in an hours time is not really doable in my area without a car as there is no court in the town where my office is based.

Like I said, city or even big town life is very different.

@Fizzpopwhizzbang Apologies, all except NSW and VIC is pending. ACT banned back in 2011 - so eight years ago!

Also, quote at the bottom of this article, seems to me they are way ahead of where we are here in the UK.

www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-19/canberra-ponders-ditching-all-single-use-plastics/10823170

^
The leading Australian packaging organisation has committed to 100 per cent of the nation's packaging to be reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025.

The ACT Government has its own target of 90 per cent of waste being diverted from landfill by the same date.^

We live in a democracy, not a totalitarian fascist dictatorship, so it is politically impossible to impose draconian restrictions on people’s freedom to travel, drive cars or eat what they want. People would simply refuse to support such policies, and refuse to vote for politicians who advocated them.

The Green Party has only ever had one MP elected to Parliament, Caroline Lucas, and she represents a unique constituency in a unique city (Brighton Pavilion). She also benefits because Labour and the Lib Dems don’t stand against her.

Right now we live in a democracy, but as resources grow scarcer, who knows what will happen.