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.

AngelasAshes

I fundamentally disagree with you. You are a climate change denier.

I am not.

I remember maybe 30/20 years ago it was all about the trees and saving trees for paper and card. Lots of packaging changed at this point to plastics.

Problem is now that we are over run with plastic and the bloody rainforest is still being taken for other uses so we haven’t won either battle.

I’m really angry about the rain forest issue in particular as nothing seems to be happening to curb this.

Good luck getting any food into the country, since you've probably just killed off the Merchant Navy...

Something does need to be done, but it needs to be a bit more delicate than your suggestions.

UK has shut down coal powered power stations.
Other countries are building new ones still.
It makes no sense to me.

This is partly a result or consequence of how carbon is calculated by source not destination. China is building power plants to power factories that predominantly serve export demand. Uk can reduce coal fired because it has effectively outsourced its demand for dirty, energy intensive industries like textiles and electronics to other countries. That carbon gets allocated to China as the emitter, even though they're emitting to serve demand from other countries.

If carbon was taxed at destination (critically this should include sea freight which is currently not accounted for at all) then we'd get a much more accurate picture which would put the onus on rather different countries.

Bottom line: People in developed countries need to stop buying so much crap, especially fast fashion and other plastic tat.

I would so much rather argue about how many trees people planted than how many steaks they foregone.

I will start. I planted 3 so far and on a lookout for forth atm. Woohoo

We need schemes to persuade more people to plant trees - maybe one option would be getting every child to plant a tree when they leave school - with a bit of the money that gets spent on proms.

@SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius every new build should have a tree in a giant pot upfront

I would so much rather argue about how many trees people planted than how many steaks they foregone.

Ok, but that's a false dichotomy if you look at the impact of beef farming globally in terms of forest clearance for ranching, and water use and methane production. The major barrier to planting more trees (especially in the most deforested areas) is land. Most land is owned. The land owner has the right to use that land as they wish within reason, and planting trees is rarely the most profitable use of the land. We need wholesale mass sustainable forestry. Planting a few trees in your garden is not going to move the dial. This is actually where China has done quite well (largely because they have the type of government they have and own all the land) because they have ordered mass afforestations.

I'm not sure that many people fully appreciate that 96% of biomass on earth now comprises humans and our domesticated animals (farm animals and pets). That is fucked up.

@soulrunner would be a nice change in the discussion though.

Trees in pots are not much use Household - they capture and store carbon much more effectively if planted in the ground.

Is that really true Soulrunner? I was under the impression insects and micro organisms dwarfed mammals, birds, fish and larger animals in terms if biomass.

Thats before accounting for plants too.

household not really because you’d be focusing on the wrong thing.

@BarbariansMum insurance and roots issues when they grow big.
Like this people would be more open to it.

keep it’s true by weight but possibly not by quantity. I also imagine it depends to an extent how certain animals are classified.

However- a good contrast is that there are 3 billion cattle in the world but only 300000 tigers.

True. But you could have a role that says that 1 new tree must be planted within a mile of each new build, which would give you more options. Then developers could plant street trees to help counter the urban heat island effect, or trees in parks or create new woodland.

Thanks Soulrunner, going to do some research on this. I suppose if we account for food production it skews things significantly...

I never reealiaed it was that bad though. :(

You know what will happen though - us plebs will be unable to go on our one long haul flight a year or drive our (reasonably new) car and the elite (looking at you Harry and Megan and your private flight to Ibiza after making a barefoot speech at an event about climate change) will carry on their lives relatively unaffected, protected by their buffer of wealth and connections.

The easiest way would be a carbon tax with a personal allowance. That way, if a corporation or family decide they really wanted that long flight or polluting car, they can choose to pay more or put their allowance towards it.

I don't agree with family size limitation. For one thing, the UK is under replacement rate as it is (1.73?) and the global birthrate on average has plummeted since the 60s. For another, the ethics of limiting fertility are usually brutal and focused on females - look at the policies in China and India. They only one I have seen that achieved long-term success was the opening of futher education to all teenagers. Give them a reason to do more than fuck around and it's amazing how many will happily put off reproducing in return for better career prospects.

TheABC
The easiest way would be a carbon tax with a personal allowance

So how would that actually work?

How would you calculate what each person should have?

In a town or a city it would be very simple to reduce your carbon footprint. Not so much in rural areas with no public transport, limited shopping centres etc.

I think everyone needs to do their bit but human behavious as a whole has gone so far it will be hard to reverse. I also think we need to think eyond sensationalist headlines and think logically about it

For example the whole eat less meat thing is pointless if all your veggie food comes with loads of airmiles. As a life long veggie I had a shocking realisation how far many of my foods were travelling so now focus on eating local foods. That includes introducing some locally produced meat. We live in a country prime for livestock grazing on land which simply cannot be used to grow crops so I would rather support utilising the land for local food.

I would also much rather use a hard wearing plastic tub to weight out fruit, veggies, fish etc at the supermarket than use multiple paper bags everytime. That paper still has to come from somewhere and IMO utilising 3 or 4 plastic tubs for 5+years (taking a guess at timeframe) will have less impact than getting multiple paper bags every time I shop.

I have no kids but I am not going to promise I won't ever have any. I haven't been abroad in 5 years and see no immediate plans too. That said, again, I can't guarantee I will never set foot on a plane.

I would much rather by degradable fabrics that are an animal product ie real leather, wool etc which degrade and are natural and long lasting than buy plastic (polyester, viscose etc) clothing which is not long wearing and is essentially putting plastic into the environment.

I do work from home occasionally but most days work does include a drive into work.

I find that the people who shout the loudest about it are usually the worst offenders. I have a friend who likes to preach and preach (and preach somemore) to everyone who listens about it.....yet her vegan diet includes avocados, bananas and many other imported foods, she drives a pick up truck and her kids play about on a motorbike each (3 of them) and she was away to Spain for a hen night not that long ago. Now I am not denying the family their lifestyle BUT don't preach to us all when you are an offender....

Very interesting (and alarming) to real that one google search is the equivalent to powering a lightbulb for 17 seconds..... yet here we all are on our computers, using the internet, to discuss these things - human behaviour is truly baffling!

I had no idea about the google search thing either.

I think there needs to be a massive push for educating the masses on our choices. Like PP have said, it is hard to know whether to choose locally sourced meat over veggies flown in from Africa etc etc.

Everything seems to conflict and I want to do the right thing but not entirely sure how.

theres also an interesting stat about copying in people to emails very quickly adding up to a transatlantic flight. Hang on...

www.earthtimes.org/scitech/true-impact-email/1147/