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.

The infrastructure needs to change - public transport is generally designed to get you to the centre of large cities, it costs an absolute fortune including to bloody park at the station! But electric cars may help with this anyway, depending on how the electricity is produced.

Flights definitely need to be a lot more expensive, and include offsetting as standard.

Also in terms of car use mindset of car=king needs to change. The number of impatient twats who think getting to the gym or lunch in their gas guzzler is more important than cyclists being able to use the road is frankly staggering.

As a non-driver with no children, who hasn't flown for about 15 years (and no plans to fly in the foreseeable future) I don't think it would affect me very much. I do eat meat, so I suppose a heavy restriction on meat eating might seem inconvenient, but I could make do with non- or low meat meals - I expect I'd get used to it.

Having children is the worst but even on this thread you have people who say we must do something to help but saying that wouldn’t work just because it suits them to have children. Why is other things selfish but not that?

Judging by the threads I've read, they would whine and whine and whine.

On this point, MNers have proven to be a right bunch if individualistic little Tories.

Also, we have regular flights between the north and south of our own tiny little island because the trains are so shit and expensive.

That ridiculous picture of Prince Andrew getting on a private jet back from Balmoral 😡. Cos that's fully necessary isn't it..? 🤷🏻‍♀️

Here's a thought. Why not vote in governments who will invest in replacing coal/oil with sustainable energy resources, sustainable farming and green spaces in urban areas, increased digital infrastructure so more people can work remotely, increased investment in research into sustainable products, etc, etc.

All of that investment would come from your taxes and make a far bigger impact than having less children or flying less.

Also, 25% of the world will be over the age of 80 by 2050 and birthrates are down virtually everywhere in the world. We are facing a population crisis because we aren't having enough children, not because we are having too many.

I was in the supermarket the other day buying new potatoes. The three options were grown in Norfolk, Cornwall or Israel. I chose Norfolk (much closer to me than Cornwall), but why is the Israel one even there as an option? I'm sure most people would happily choose the local ones, but many of them probably don't even look at the label.

This is the kind of thing that needs to change (also corporate travel - companies should be using FaceTime etc alternatives wherever possible) before we ask people to give up their annual foreign holiday.

What? People choose the greater good above their own selfish interests? You must be joking. We don't do that anymore in 2019.

On this point, MNers have proven to be a right bunch if individualistic little Tories.

I tend to agree with this, there is an undercurrent of looking after the poor/ nasty conservatives. BUT when it comes down to owning 2 houses/ living in a draughty mansion/ driving a 4wd etc it's all fine as long as you can afford it and anyone who says otherwise is purely jealous. MNetters also often shun modern, well insulated houses as not having enough style while whinging about someone paying 5p for a plastic bag.

Domestic flights in the U.K. are crazy- make public transport free.

I think town planning needs to take this into account. Where my DM works they keep building these housing estates each in the middle of nowhere with no shops or amenities walkable, no train station and limited busses. It just keeps adding more and more cars on to the roads.

I think consumers or ' the little people' can drive change. Reuse carrier bags, stop accepting throw away takeaway cups etc.
Buy more vegan products. Veganism is huge right now and companies are responding.
I feel that capitalism has to go to save the planet ...and definately Trump.

Having children is the most destructive thing a person can to do to the planet. Worse than plastic, travel, diet, everything!! You’re creating a whole new person who will use up resources, use plastic, travel so any steps you make personally are cancelled out times a billion if you have children.

People for some reason get blinded when it comes to having children so don’t take it too well hearing they should have fewer, or preferably none. What they should remember is it’s their children and grandchildren who will have to live with the consequences!

Researchers found having one fewer child per family can save an average of 58.6 tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions per year

Really I think we have to let the market do it, but market prices should accurately incorporate the financial and social costs of production. Its insane that flying is so cheap when trains are so expensive. We shouldn't ban flying, but we should end the tax relief on aviation fuel and incorporate a carbon tax. People will not change voluntarily, personally I fly for holidays, it's too much really and I've thought about it a lot more the last couple of years and will be making changes. But when speaking to other people flying every week for work, or who just say well I moved away from my family so I have to fly, well I think we are at the point where that shouldn't be seen as a right. Those decisions will need to be rethought in the future based on our new reality. We have got too used to prices not reflecting actual costs and we cannot allow our personal preferences to come first. BUT, we need alternatives, I dont want to never see other places and people again, or sunshine for that matter! Trains should be actually affordable and fast, travel will take longer so our workplaces should adapt to that using video conferencing, allowing more travel time for meetings, longer holidays for staff. We have to abandon the model of economic growth at all costs, the economy does not exist in a vacuum it can only exist when supported by environment and society and I would like to see the economy adapt before we see the collapse of its support systems. Our children and grandchildren will witness suffering on a scale we cannot fathom, arguing over a week in Spain will seem so petty then.

Bottom line is that the true costs of many activities and behaviours that we take for granted are way beyond our ability to pay for them. If the price of food, clothes, housing, transport, equipment etc reflected the true environmental cost (ie included the cost of habitat destruction, transport of materials, cost of proper disposal, cost of reducing or properly dealing with pollution arising from these activities) there is no way that the “general public” could afford them.

We have chosen a liberal democracy and a market economy. In the UK that comes down to popularity-contest politics and consumers who demand goods and services at the cheapest price they can be supplied at - achieved by cutting all possible corners, including environmental.

All the MNrs currently moving into new build properties: how would you feel to find that the cost doubles overnight as the builders are required to make good all the true costs of building those properties?

Or anyone here who pays local taxes: happy to see huge increases in your council tax to pay for decent local public transport schemes ? Or for recycling schemes that don’t involve shipping it to third world dumps?

We’ve had it good for years now, by effectively externalising (aka ignoring) the environmental (and social) costs of production. Internalising (aka recognising and accounting / paying for) these costs will cause pain, especially for those with fewer resources.

How would people react to a restriction on car ownership to encourage less driving, I know many people who drive huge distances every day for work.

I have only flown once this year for business related reasons, flights are too cheap - should they be taxed more? Many younger people take multiple flights in a year.

Many older people take multiple flights a year too...the wealthy retired for example.

Ultimately the electorate have voted against socialism and for a capitalist government as we are a selfish species and we will suffer as a result ( or our kids will.) Hey ho....as long as we have comfortable lives..

I think the government should lead by example - all trains/buses/government cars should be made electric. No excuses - they operate all day long. Introduce a new carbon tax and use it to fund initiative such as retrofitting energy inefficient houses. Ban all plastic packaging in supermarkets. I get some mashed potato now that comes in a biodegradable plastic tray with carboard cover. All foods should be packaged as such.

I don’t think it would be fair to ban flying when lots of people are having multiple kids with no restrictions there (for obvious reasons). I find going away for some sunshine really makes me feel better. I would be in favor of a flying visa which is restricted to once a year plus one more trip in case of an emergency. Companies in particular should invest in advanced video conferencing tech so they don’t have to send people abroad as much.

It would go down very badly, as our culture does not emphasise social responsibility. Just the suggestion that we can't do whatever we want causes outrage.
Personally it wouldn't affect me that much because I already don't drive or fly or eat meat. I prefer to buy unpacked fruit and vegetables and would be happy to use a bucket shop but there aren't any in my area. Due to financial reasons I don't buy a lot of stuff for the sake of it.
I am guilty of having 3 children though. They're adults now, so far I only have 2 grandchildren and will be very surprised if I have any more so my own family has naturally restricted it's growth. I think that will happen in a lot of families.

Many younger people take multiple flights in a year.

Why younger people? So do many older and middle-aged people.....

The biggest way that I think the whole world could cut down on carbon emissions is by cutting the number of flights - I was gobsmacked when someone introduced me to flight radar to see the number of aircraft in the sky at any one time. And that doesn't include helicopters! However it would have to be a global thing and I really can't see the number of flights in USA and China for example reducing as they 'need' them to move between cities as the country is so vast.

When you bear this in mind, I can see why some people (exH I'm looking at you!) don't bother to recycle as it surely can't make any difference?

I think ultimately it will have to come down to limiting the amount of miles people are allowed to fly.

I have read an estimate that it would cost 1 USD per litre to manufacture fuel (petrol, diesel, jet, whatever) from green electricity and air. This is carbon neutral fuel that will only put as much CO2 back into the air as was extracted to make it.

1 USD per litre is less than we pay for petrol and diesel now, so as long as the government is willing to shift the tax burden on those elsewhere, there would be no need for the price to increase.

I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and the increased cost of using manufactured jet fuel would add 130 USD to a flght that used the full range of a 767. So it would make flying of the order of 10% more expensive. Which would make hardly any difference to our ability to fly anywhere.

So I disagree that we need to limit transport, it just becomes slightly more expensive.

The biggest way that I think the whole world could cut down on carbon emissions is by cutting the number of flights

Flights are 2% of emissions worldwide, almost nothing. By a long way the biggest generator of CO2 in the UK is heating for homes, it is many many times a bigger issue than all of transport put together.

If people want to start banning things, ban central heating, not flying. But I suspect people won't want to ban something that's definitely going to affect them.

"Agree that air freighting should be a priority, we don’t need strawberries all year round. "

No, but some of us like them thank you very much and wouldnt be happy to go without.

I for one would vote down any government that tried to tell me I couldnt fly, eat what I want to drive my car.

I think there would need to be a mix of carrots and sticks. For example, put cost of petrol up, while making buses and trains so cheap and reliable that it's a no brainer not to use them.

Invest in cycle paths and make roads safer for pedestrians while having no car zones around schools (as far as is possible, if a school is on a main road you can't really block the road to cars).

But you can't just be punitive, you have to invest in the things that are better for the environment and make them cheap to use.