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.

Although google is now showing me much bigger figures for transport emissions than when I last looked a few weeks ago, so I am off to check the discrepancy.

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.

Living car free really isn't possible for most people unless they live in London or another large city.

Corporates are often to blame for business miles - they close offices increasing commutes and expect people to use company cars rather than trains for business travel as it is cheaper for them.

It seems to me that it's more sensible to encourage people to choose economical cars because we quite simply don't have the transport infrastructure to support everyone being car free.

Flights may make up only 2% of total emissions, but they put the greenhouse gases directly into the atmosphere and they cause more damage there than emissions at ground level. So flying is definitely something we need to cut back on.

Until people are willing to have sensible and realistic conversations about population control the rest is largely irrelevant. We have too many children, keep people alive for far too long in the west and keep babies alive who in reality should not make it. None of those conversations are pleasant as every individual thinks that their offspring are somehow the most worthy or important but the reality is from a global point of view humans are parasites and the more of us there are the more we will take a toll on the earth.

1300cakes That's essentially what's happening here too though. So many supermarkets (and other shops) have replaced the flimsy carrier bags with the thicker plastic ones as the only option. Yes, they may last longer so be more reusable, but I'm sure I remember reading that the thicker bags needed to be used something like 176 times before they became better for the environment due to the increased amount of plastic and expense/method of production (slightly hazy on the details as I read it a while ago). Mine get holes in and fall apart well before that many uses.

Like others have said, every little change helps, but to make a real difference we've been focusing on the wrong issues so far.

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?

🤦🏻‍♀️ yeah cos new build well insulated properties are the scourge of the environment..... well the nimbies who have nice large drafty properties nearby

The price of housing is fairly simply demand and supply. If it became more costly to build the price of building land would reduce in line. And houses only sell for what people will pay for them.

The problem with public transport is its privately owned and run for profit meaning on a town level busses can be a right mess with multiple routes going through one area and no routes through another. I've worked in hospitals where there is a clear need for a decent bus link between the hospital and an area for both patients and workers but no company wants to set up one. One advantage of it being nationalised is it could potentially mean routes are better organised and places linked up properly.

I dont' think it's population control that is the first option because the countries with large families are often poor and eg living on a pavement in Bombay. Not producing carbon much.
I lived in the 50s - I'd love to see a shift back. Problem is work and living near it. But much of what we think we need and want we could live without. And we now have conference calling/ skype so it's not as though now you are confined to an area which you can cycle in a day (eg to work school) you would never speak to friends or family, we have I T now.
People are too selfish. They don't want their life to change, just everyone else's. And half arsed - talk of banning beef when we still drive cars, run central heating when we aren't in, fly everywhere!!

What a out sanctions on big businesses - the ones who actually have caused this mess by putting money over environmental impact? Statistically, they are the ones who are at fault.

You know that plastic alternatives are often not much better than the plastic if it were properly recycled and wouldn't end up in a sea?
Tote bags made with cotton need to be used well over 5000 times apparently to have a positive environmental effect.

I haven't flown for 16 years and am unlikely to again in the foreseeable future. We eat little meat nowadays and already use a lot of dairy free alternatives. If possible I do long distance journeys on my own on public transport.
We use our cars a lot on a day to day basis but we have a disabled child who is difficult to accommodate and wouldn't cope with public or shared transport ( severe meltdowns with dangerous behaviour)and we need to get between places/ home quickly because of the level of our child's care needs.

I think supermarkets should be forced to display the number of miles every product has travelled - might make us all think twice about buying apples from NZ!

All publicly owned or used buildings to be fitted with solar panels right now. Massive tax breaks/means tested grants for private housing to be fitted too.

A monthly or yearly allowance for new clothing - essentially rationing cotton, which is hugely carbon-costly to manufacture. Might make people think twice about buying an outfit for just one occasion.

And yes, businesses need a cap on how many flights they can buy per year. So many meetings imo do not need to take place. I have noticed in very male-dominated businesses there is huge emphasis on “pressing the flesh” and meeting face to face whereas (massive generalisation alert!) I think more pragmatic, female-dominated workplaces are often happy with a well-worded email or diplomatic Skype call.

I think it would tank the economy - people need to travel for business now.
I would accept flight quotas and bans on all non essential plastic, only having seasonal produce, bit only if these measures were applied to everyone. I'd kick off if big business were still allowed to trash the planet and if the royal family and other 'important' people were allowed to travel freely.
There's no way I'd accept the govt telling me how many children I could have.

I think the government should lead by example - all trains/buses/government cars should be made electric.

We haven’t got the infrastructure for that, we can’t produce enough electricity for that at the moment. Replacing old (useable) cars with new is also not necessarily the best for the environment due to the manufacturing. Not to mention the questionable battery mining issues.

Tesla have also thrown a rather large spanner in the works recently by sending an update to some cars to heavily reduce range, there’s theories that this is because their network can’t cope or to hide future warranty issues with degradation. Now no one is going to accept a car that the manufacturer can have such an impact on (you wouldn’t let vw fit a smaller petrol tank on your drive over night), it would do huge damage to the new found trust people have with EVs

I think also the "on yer bike" ideology of the past decades sadly does mean people living far from friends and family who would face a hugely negative impact on their mental health if travel to visit loved ones was made more difficult.

I was shocked to realise that the fat majority of flights are social not business, but as pp have said families relocate and move around on the basis that staying in touch and seeing each other regularly is possible.
I’d love to see those big bright adverts banned- glaring eye burning billboards. Why?

Morrisons sell cucumbers without plastic. Sad, wrinkly things, they are.

If food packaging changes radically, people will need to go back to shopping slmost daily, which becomes tricky for the time poor and cash poor and, for many, would necessitate a car journey, unless local infrastructure could change rapidly enough.

How would people react to a restriction on car ownership to encourage less driving.

It would only work if there was the infrastructure in place for people to use public transport instead.

Lots of people have no choice but to drive to work or school. Huge swathes of the UK have no access public transport - or if they do, it costs double or triple what it would cost to run a car.

I drive because I have no way getting to work otherwise. My town has no bus station, so that's not an option. There is a train station, but to get the train to my job would take almost four hours and would cost more than I earn in a day. I'd also have to leave the night before to get there on time.

DH also has a car because he works in the opposite direction to me (so we can't car share) and the train wouldn't get him to work on time. Plus he works in the building trade and needs a vehicle to transport all his tools and goods around.

We recycle, don't buy 'stuff', don't use car for short journeys, fly shorthaul maybe once every 3 years, lower thermostats, don;t use tumble dryer when we can dry laundry outside, try and minimise plastic use etc, but until China stops building coal fired power stations and Trump gets his head out of his arse, it always feels a bit pointless. Very little point in individuals doing their best (although still think we should try), unless governments and corporations step up.

I’d 100% support all of the changes mentioned. Devastated that my baby will witness the end of humanity in her lifetime.

I think educating the next generation will be key, I just hope it's not too late. My DD doesn't eat meat due to what she's seen on youtube etc.

Morrisons sell cucumbers without plastic. Sad, wrinkly things, they are.
@PickAChew
Your absolutely right, a lot of the packaging keeps the food fresh for longer, stopping waste of food and farming waste.
So yet again what’s worse for the environment? The plastic film or the three cucumbers that have had to be grown to replace that one wrapped one.

I think supermarkets should be forced to display the number of miles every product has travelled - might make us all think twice about buying apples from NZ!

It wouldn't tbh. Carbon footprint is not just about miles.
It's about HOW it's grown too. For example something what needs heated glasshouses in UK will have higher footprint than the same fruit or veg grown naturally elsewhere and shipped here.

People would change their minds if it showed total footprint. Not just miles.

fridakahlo - If you are so concerned and devastated, why the hell did you have the baby in the first place!