To think people are going to have to be inconvenienced to actually stop climate change?

[Confrontayshunme]

A road near our home was closed to create a Low Traffic Neighbourhood during the first lockdown. Children at the local junior and high schools have benefitted hugely in road safety, the cycle and scooter racks were overflowing and the pollution was measured recently as 40% less (in an area with 3 schools).

And yet they reopened the road because enough drivers wanted to save 10 minutes in the morning. The day after it reopened, half of the bikes and scooters were gone due to safety concerns. Even my coworker who said it made her cycle to work easier and safer was hugely relieved that she doesn't have to go an extra 10 minutes out of her way when driving.

Anyway, I just despair for the planet if adults and people riding in heated, air conditioned, comfortable, waterproof music players can't possibly leave the house 10 minutes earlier to allow our community's children just one intersection's worth of safety and convenience. Plus, the level of pollution driving our children all these miles (when they could be exercising or improving their mental health) inside a car shortens their lives so there isn't any time saved overall anyway!

And before the pile on commences, I realise many people are not able to use alternate transport or active travel due to physical disability or huge distances and I wouldn't include them in this.

@CliantheLang

Why are you afraid? There are only 2 ways to stop climate change. Either

1. the Earth loses it's atmosphere or

2. the sun goes nova.

The climate will change because it's a natural process that has absolutely nothing to do with carbon or human activity. Which is why all the computer-modeled predictions have failed. None of the hysteria has anything to do with science.

Well that's bollocks.

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2021 was for "the physical modelling of Earth’s climate, quantifying variability and reliably predicting global warming”.

Now go and read it.

Some of our descendants will survive many won’t.

Erm, none of us survive. We all die at some point from something.

Our LTN was rushed in without consultation, and has simply concentrated the traffic onto one or two roads whilst making private cul de sacs of others.

It absolutely SHOULD be removed, and only returned once a properly thought out way to reduce traffic and increase public transport has been put in place. Not just expect driving commuters to magic up new ways to commute at the drop of a hat whilst creating changes that confer a huge advantage to some parts of the neighbourhood whilst diminishing it for others.

@Labhra87

It will be much more like few people having cars at all, most people staying very close to home through their life, having one sweter and two outfits and probably no electronic gadgets. Something much closer to the expectations in terms of travel and property ownership that people had pre-1950.

This is me. Well except I do have a 2014 second hand laptop because the internet is pretty essential these days.

This isn't a smug post.

It's because I'm poor.

Many people on benefits or on a really low income live just like me. It baffles me how it's unfathomable to most on MN.

Agreed.

Op Agree with you 100%

A few years ago we swapped 2 petrol cars for 1 electric one. I had serious misgivings and yes we have had to change the way we do things but actually We’ve never looked back.

Yet when I try and subtely mention to friends that they could do the same or at least share a car (I get that many families need two cars btw) I just get “but we wouldn’t be able to do x, it would be more difficult to do y”. Yeah it would, you’re right. But unless people can make their own decisions than they can put up with these inconveniences then we’re a bit screwed really.

I live in greater Manchester and there is currently a big uproar about the future clean air zone.
I don’t think the proposed scheme is well thought out at all and there’s lots that’s wrong with it.
But the number of people ranting on Facebook clearly not happy about being inconvenienced in any way is utterly depressing

You can't stop it!

YANBU. But far too many people are too ignorant and selfish, and politicians too focused on the next election, for the long-term changes to happen.

Humanity is too stupid and selfish to avert climate change.

It’s naive to imagine most people will be prepared to make serious personal sacrifices, eg giving up their cars or not taking foreign holidays, to reduce climate change. Especially when they see rich, sanctimonious hypocritical politicians & celebrities flying first class while lecturing the little people about saving the planet. Yes, Emma Thompson I do mean you.

The solution lies in improved technology. Genuinely affordable electric cars, buses, vans & taxis running on renewable power are a start. Heavy trucks will need better battery technology to allow realistic payloads & ranges. Aircraft are currently decades away from a practical alternative to fossil fuels. Domestic heat pumps need to actually work and to be affordable to install. They are currently neither. There may be a long way to go, but technology is the only long-term solution.

Agree OP, and I dont think anything will be done by government to stop it, its all just gimmicks.

I dont think people do want to be inconvenienced, including me. I think we will get forced eventually.

@CliantheLang

Why are you afraid? There are only 2 ways to stop climate change. Either

1. the Earth loses it's atmosphere or

2. the sun goes nova.

The climate will change because it's a natural process that has absolutely nothing to do with carbon or human activity. Which is why all the computer-modeled predictions have failed. None of the hysteria has anything to do with science.

Almost every scientist says humans contribute, but sure, I bet your decades of research is much more robust.

@bordermidgebite

The idea is that drivers are forced to use the main routes leaving more residential areas safer

Yes more traffic on the main routes that are meant to have it

And making it easier for people to leave the car behind -

if done correctly you end up with fewer cars on the main road also because you have quieter safer options for none car users

LTNs are counter productive, unfair and divisive. All the stuff you’re coming out with sounds good on paper but you’re completely divorced from reality.

Obviously fewer cars on the road is a good thing (and I rarely drive). That’s not in dispute. But doing something for the sake of it regardless of whether it makes things worse is crazy.

I have an asthmatic child and live on a residential road, but one which has not been closed while others around it have. The traffic on our road has increased noticeably, worsening air pollution for her. Why is that right or fair? Is her health less important because we don’t live on the more expensive side roads? It’s ok to divert the share of other children’s air pollution onto her so they have less because she has more?

In the real world, LTNs only make things easier to leave the car behind for a very small number of people who can make their entire journey by eg bike within the LTN, otherwise they’re going to have to continue their journey on busy roads when they reach the edge of the LTN. I cannot imagine anyone who is only willing to walk because the road is closed to cars - in fact I would be less likely to get the train to and from work if the road was shut because I have to walk back from the station in the dark and only feel safe because there are lots of cars around. It’s really simplistic to just say shut a few roads and it’ll magically make it easier for people to leave the car at home despite the lack of investment in public transport.

LTNs aren’t about making it easier to leave e car at home, they’re about making it really unpleasant to drive so people don’t want to. But that punishes people with necessary car journeys too. My Grandmother is reliant on home care, three times per day. The carers are always late these days because they’re sitting in traffic. Contesting the roads does a lot of harm, that’s just one example.

OP - you’re conflating issues. Yes people have to be inconvenienced to live more sustainably. That doesn’t mean LTNs which worsen the health of the children who can’t afford to live on the posh side streets and have all the traffic shunted down their road are a good idea. They increase congestion, increase journey times and do not work in their current format. Just because something is inconvenient and causes hardship it doesn’t make it sustainable.

Incidentally i don’t know where you are, but in London the LTNs don’t just cause a 10 minute delay. Main roads are car parks.

@thecatsthecats

Our LTN was rushed in without consultation, and has simply concentrated the traffic onto one or two roads whilst making private cul de sacs of others.

It absolutely SHOULD be removed, and only returned once a properly thought out way to reduce traffic and increase public transport has been put in place. Not just expect driving commuters to magic up new ways to commute at the drop of a hat whilst creating changes that confer a huge advantage to some parts of the neighbourhood whilst diminishing it for others.

Brilliantly put.

Let's start with the big corporations. Belgian airlines runs 3,000 empty flights a year just to keep their place in the landing order. That's just one example of the things that need to stop before individual or micro-level efforts will make any sort of impact.

Micro level efforts matter in that they indicate to industry and government what the population cares about

@Frazzled2207 I also live in GM and listened to Andy Burnham on the radio last week about the clean air zone. From what I remember it was mostly tradespeople who had issues. The cost of buying new vehicles is prohibitive for most, they haven’t just got £10000s spare, the grants don’t cover what is needed. It’s not like some have much choice; a plumber can’t exactly carry a new boiler on to a bus can they?

The MEN interviewed a taxi driver, he said the Euro 5 (?) models would go 80 miles on a single charge, he’d done 76 that day. I can’t afford an electric car, nor do I want one as I don’t want an automatic. Has anyone yet worked out a way to dispose of the batteries that’s not harmful? And where is all this extra capacity coming from to supply the amount of electric needed if we all switched to these cars?

Totally agree@Notthemessiah. People stand to lose far too much money if we all did what needed to be done.

I'm usually the first to be pessimistic about our chances of keeping the effects of climate change manageable and to pile scorn on the elite but...

There's about £130 trillion worth of assets under management signed up to the PRI scheme, which contains criteria around sustainability and a further £34 Trillion pledged to various net zero schemes. The big money players are well aware that climate change will cost them more in the long wrong than inaction now will and are starting to put downwards pressure on those who want their money. I'm already seeing quite a big push towards this, as the warnings coming out are if you can't evidence you're in a net zero journey by 2025 you can forget about investments from the big firms.

One global drinks manufacturer I've been working with recently has spent a literal fortune on sustainability projects and are all systems go with it. One pilot programme saw then try a new process that saved 70,000l of water a day at one site and this is now being rolled out globally at huge expense.

We're also just now starting to see how this will play out for the average Joe, with a couple of mortgage providers now refusing theirest rates to homes with gas central heating unless the buyer agrees to foot the cost of installing renewable heating or all electric systems. Whether we'll do enough is debatable but there's a lot of wheels in motion at government/corporate level which won't filter down to affect the average person for a few years yet. 2025-2030 is when we'll have a better idea of how much/little change we will have forced upon us.

@Bucanarab

Totally agree@Notthemessiah. People stand to lose far too much money if we all did what needed to be done.

I'm usually the first to be pessimistic about our chances of keeping the effects of climate change manageable and to pile scorn on the elite but...

There's about £130 trillion worth of assets under management signed up to the PRI scheme, which contains criteria around sustainability and a further £34 Trillion pledged to various net zero schemes. The big money players are well aware that climate change will cost them more in the long wrong than inaction now will and are starting to put downwards pressure on those who want their money. I'm already seeing quite a big push towards this, as the warnings coming out are if you can't evidence you're in a net zero journey by 2025 you can forget about investments from the big firms.

One global drinks manufacturer I've been working with recently has spent a literal fortune on sustainability projects and are all systems go with it. One pilot programme saw then try a new process that saved 70,000l of water a day at one site and this is now being rolled out globally at huge expense.

We're also just now starting to see how this will play out for the average Joe, with a couple of mortgage providers now refusing theirest rates to homes with gas central heating unless the buyer agrees to foot the cost of installing renewable heating or all electric systems. Whether we'll do enough is debatable but there's a lot of wheels in motion at government/corporate level which won't filter down to affect the average person for a few years yet. 2025-2030 is when we'll have a better idea of how much/little change we will have forced upon us.

The first example sounds promising but the second is just using the mortgage providers power to force the little man (I.e. us) to do something so they don’t have to and that won’t cost them money. It’s the kind of policy big companies spin to make it look like they’re doing the right thing when really, if you look a bit more closely, you realise it’s actually the complete opposite.

@Brindle88

YANBU. But far too many people are too ignorant and selfish, and politicians too focused on the next election, for the long-term changes to happen.

Humanity is too stupid and selfish to avert climate change.

Yeah me and the poster who is a community nurse are really selfish. We and our colleagues should stop driving our cars to our clients and patients out in the community. Selfish clients needing help to get clean and dressed.

@EishetChayil

Let's start with the big corporations. Belgian airlines runs 3,000 empty flights a year just to keep their place in the landing order. That's just one example of the things that need to stop before individual or micro-level efforts will make any sort of impact.

Totally agree. Stuff like this is just crazy.

We also need to start at the top and reduce the money and power of those who have most of it. No problem with their being a range of how much people own or earn, but the current disparity between richest and poorest is obscene and getting worse. No-one should be earning millions of pounds a year regardless of what they do and to somehow argue that if they were only offered a paltry £500,000 they’d not bother and we’d somehow all be worse off for it is ridiculous.

Maybe explain to all the employers that we'll need shorter working as standard hours if we massively reduce car use, as we will need to devote a huge amount more time to get places on foot/by bike with young children.

@EishetChayil

Let's start with the big corporations. Belgian airlines runs 3,000 empty flights a year just to keep their place in the landing order. That's just one example of the things that need to stop before individual or micro-level efforts will make any sort of impact.

This is 100% the fault of the EU, not "big corporations"

The EU currently requires Airlines to use 50% of their airport slots or lose them (was 80% pre-pandemic, increases to 64% in April). This means the Lufthansa Group (includes Brussels, Swiss, Austrian and Eurowings) is running 18,000 empty flights over three months this winter purely to retain airport slots.

This the same EU that is promising to cut carbon emissions from the transport sector by 90 per cent by 2050

www.euronews.com/green/2022/01/06/almost-2-years-into-the-pandemic-empty-flights-are-still-frying-the-planet

The idea that anything humans can do either changes the climate or can stop the climate changing would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

The problem isn't inconvenience.

It's time. Our economy is built around huge amounts of productive or value generating time. If we aren't working we are consuming.

There has to be a huge economic rebasing if we have to shift back to a world where we have to devote a lot of our time to manual activities that dont involve us generating value for corporations.

@CuteOrangeElephant

I moved to Holland last year and the difference with the UK is astonishing. We don't need a car here, everything is done on bike, public transport and very occasionally we use a car sharing scheme car.

They have made several streets around here low traffic and it is actually faster for me to cycle to the train station than take a car.

This could be done in the UK but it requires a significant cultural shift.

I do agree, but to be fair, Holland is flatter. Where I live, it's incredibly hilly, and the only cyclists are those sporty endurance types.