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'm sure I read somewhere (though this was a few years back) that NZ lamb had a lower carbon footprint than British, due to farming methods - the shipping was almost neither here nor there as container ships carry so much.

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

I’m assuming then that you didn’t know about the crisis the planet is facing until after she was born?

No democracy will ever make the changes necessary to combat climate change.

@CassianAndor I'm sure I read somewhere (though this was a few years back) that NZ lamb had a lower carbon footprint than British, due to farming methods - the shipping was almost neither here nor there as container ships carry so much

It’s just better to cut animal products out all together to be honest rather than weigh up which ones might be slightly better. They’re all pretty disastrous environmentally.

One way to tackle nod of children is to have a law that says whoever you have your first child with, is your "mate" for life ie you cannot have children with anyone else - barring rape, and death of the other parent.

So if you split up, but you have had children together, neither you f you can have further children with anyone.

I totally agree that until the multinationals change, nothing will change. I agree with a pp that there's me washing a yoghurt pot pre recycling it, while yoghurt manufacturers are packaging boxes of yoghurt by wrapping them in plastic, and ferrying said yoghurt round the world.

Numbers of children, not nod. Of course.

The thing that pisses me off, we’ve known for years, I learnt about it at school 30/40 years ago. But we’ve done fuck all, we could have made small changes that make a big difference.
Now it’s big changes that make a small difference.

We’ve utterly fucked up and walked into it, eyes wide open.

Id like to see corporations forced to take action first. Its quite hard making decisions and having no idea if your washable bamboo kitchen towel is better or worse than disposable sustainable forest paper towel. Id just like to only be sold sustainable stuff.

I'd be delighted if they stop the third runway at heathrow. Restrict flights at all the airports and let costs go up as necessary to account for the pollution actually caused by planes. Same with cars.

Subsidies and support for green energy solutions would potentially lead to new jobs and export products, so that's a great next step too.

Restricting children to one or two in the UK is ridiculous. Quite apart from the unacceptable removal of personal choice involved in that, the UK's birth rates is already very low and is naturally reducing the population rather than being responsible for the population increasing globally. You're looking in the wrong place. Improved education for women used to be cited as a key factor in reducing birth rates in developing countries, so let's try that first rather than use force.

It’s just better to cut animal products out all together to be honest rather than weigh up which ones might be slightly better. They’re all pretty disastrous environmentally.

It's this kind of mindset ^^ that is damaging.

Realistically human beings are not all going to become vegan - why not encourage people to eat less meat? Maybe showing how cheaply they can make nice vegetarian meals for some of the time. I would never ever ever give up milk in my tea personally. Absolute bottom line that one for me and many others.

On a related subject is it okay to keep dogs who eat meat (and are unnecessary) but not have children or eat meat as a human..? Maybe we should be curbing the canine and feline birth rate also.

How about starting with companies instead of people. For example banning plastic packaging altogether (except certain items) and forcing them to use recyclables/reusables. Glass bottles instead of plastics that you can return and get some money back etc.
Car travel is essential in many places I'm afraid.
Oh, how about banning food with ridiculous air miles entering the country? Would people go to the streets if they couldn't eat apples from New Zealand in the winter?

So if you split up, but you have had children together, neither you f you can have further children with anyone.

How would this be enforced exactly? Stoning? Prison?

You can’t restrict car travel without providing alternatives in rural areas. Not everyone who lives in villages is wealthy and able to suck up the costs of extra taxes on car use - my neighbours are almost all in social housing and my immediate neighbours ended up in a proper mess earlier this year when there was a fuck up with their disability benefits. It’s sorted now but they were left with pretty much nothing at all for several months and the toll it took on them has only just really lifted.

Villages need more than one bus a day and and a dial-a-ride thing that will get you there eventually... hopefully. No one could use that for commuting, you’d never get into work on time. And cycling is not always possible and can be alarming, thanks to the way some people behave behind the wheel! So almost everyone drives. It will take investment to reverse that trend, in decent public transport which is clean, reliable, does the routes that people actually need as opposed to where is convenient for the bus company, and goes at sensible times. None of which is impossible, but it costs money which governments seem reluctant to spend. I think it would have to be a nationalised project too, the market would not deliver this.

The issue with any restrictions on child numbers is how do you enforce it?
Forced abortion at any stage the 3rd child is discovered? Also to include killing baby is found afterwards?

Or is it forced sterilisation of both parents on the birth of the 2nd child?

3rd + children taken into a children's home, fed minimal requirements with no rights as people and then used as slave labour?

I'm assuming multiples as second pregnancy are exempt for us the second twin out of my uterus in trouble? Forced selective reduction?

Do we want a government that advocates forced abortions, abortions at 30+ weeks simply for being number 3, infanticide?

Relaitically any impingement on travel, meat etc will be limited to the poorer sections of society because the rich will just pay there way around any fines or higher costs so other than banning them completely it will just cause class war

The issue with any restrictions on child numbers is how do you enforce it?

True, people just mindlessly breed these days!

It is tricky and I think a lot of behaviour change needs to be forced. I know myself that I recycle loads because I can’t fit rubbish in our bins because of nappies. I did disposable nappies but would have cracked on with reusables if I’d been forced to in some way.

I think renationalising public transport would be a positive step the government could take. Currently it is too expensive and useless so I often drive instead other than for my commute into London which is a generally shite train experience. I think the government could also do more to incentivise home working and local hubs

When someone posts here saying their husband flies to and from America each week for work, and you go on to read that celebrities are flying their dogs around the world as solo passengers, the fact that I rinse out yoghurt pots and re-use plastic bags seems laughable, really.

You can’t legislate against having children, flying, driving or eating berries and beans from half way across the world.
But you can make these things more unaffordable and a less appealing option.
It is stupid that the likes of dfs will sell you a easten European made sofa for less than the cost of a British made one. Our furniture industry has been destroyed so that you can sit your arse on a cheap sofa, cheaply made in Eastern Europe and then transported and sold in the uk.
These imports should be taxed so high that the more attractive option is to buy a handmade sofa made in Lancashire.
Cheap crap from China should be taxed so it is no longer cheap.
Air travel should be taxed so you only fly when necessary and not because you can get a cheap weekend in Barcelona.
We should encourage people to limit their families. Maybe even go so far as have a tax on anyone having more than two children.
Cheap imported foods should be taxed so that they are not an attractive option to buy. It is ludicrous that you can buy strawberries in December for less than £2.
The extra raised in tax should be used to support British farming, British industry and British infrastructure.

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

And there it is, in a tiny out-of-season strawberry nutshell. Extrapolate our to ALL the things that no one is willing to compromise on it change or be ever do slightly inconvenienced and we’re well and truly screwed.

Sorry, kids.

Restricting children to one or two in the UK is ridiculous. Quite apart from the unacceptable removal of personal choice involved in that, the UK's birth rates is already very low

it is the highest, or one of the highest, in the EU

You can’t legislate against having children, flying, driving or eating berries and beans from half way across the world. But you can make these things more unaffordable and a less appealing option.

But making driving even more expensive and unaffordable will just punish people who live rurally and have no other alternatives. When you live in a town with no train station and a bus that runs twice a week, what choice do you have?

We as individuals can, should and often do as much as they can to be conscious. Using as little single use plastic as possible, eating less animal products, being mindful of how much gas, electricity etc they consume.
In the great scheme of things our efforts achieve didly squat. The government, manufactures, suppliers etc need to look the amount of single use plastic used and wasted in shipping, production and storage even before a product is wrapped before being sent to the shops is one example. Water companies and industrial users of water waste far more than we individuals do.

The NHS is massive over user of single use plastic for instance. Community nurses who come to change my DM's wound dressings come with a dressing pack wrapped in plastic or paper that includes a plastic disposal bag, plastic disposable scissors, tweezers and sachets of water amongst the swabs and dressings etc. It's even worse when she's an inpatient. There has to be a better way.

True, people just mindlessly breed these days!
People choose to have howoever many babies suit them. It's not like there fucking in the gutter with anything that comes along

@Dontsweatthelittlestuffiassume if you're making all the cheap food etc expensive you'll do something to ensure lower income families can still afford to eat well, furnish their homes etc? It's yet another "incentive" to make sure the only people having unlimited children, traveling wherever they like etc is the rich whilst the poor should know their place, have enough kids to keep the lower industries running and make do with whatever scraps are left over

I don’t eat animals, I don’t have a biological child and I don’t own a car.

I do however sometimes fly, I at times flew 2/3 times a week with a previous partners career. Without flying the type of career he has wouldn’t exist as it cannot be done via video etc.

It’s bullshit. UK is less than 2% of all global emissions. It would be pathetically pointless. It needs to be a GLOBAL agreement.

Also 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions

www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change

Why is that always left out of these conversations.