Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask what one thing you would ban to help the environment?

422 replies

AngryBirdsNoMore · 21/05/2023 09:29

Following on from @GADday’s well meaning thread about disposable sanitary products being an option to phase out to help the environment - what one thing would you ban to help the environment?

Let’s not get into sanitary products again. That thread makes clear that disposable sanitary products are probably here to stay for a range of reasons…

Ill go first:

Private planes. I’m struggling to think of any reason why they’re necessary especially for short flights.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
porridgeisbae · 21/05/2023 11:18

I'd reallow virtually everything that's been banned.

Timeforchangeithink · 21/05/2023 11:20

Actually I was recently told about the internet being a vast drain in the world. This article might be of interest to some?https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/technology/data-centers-waste-vast-amounts-of-energy-belying-industry-image.html

FaintlyMacabre · 21/05/2023 11:21

A lot of this stuff is a very clever trick that the above mentioned global corporations have played on us all to shift responsibility from where it really lies. It makes me really angry that the solution to climate change apparently lies in making the lives of average people more expensive and inconvenient while allowing a few companies to continue to rake in billions of profit without consequence.

musixa · 21/05/2023 11:23

KimberleyClark · 21/05/2023 11:16

Toiletries in hotel rooms unless they are soap/shampoo bars or provided in big refillable bottles, and those single use shower caps.

I was really glad to see large refillables for all the bathroom stuff when I stayed in a budget hotel earlier this year - also instructions for how to keep your towels rather than having them needlessly laundered. Win/win because it's a money-saver for the hotel as well as benefiting the environment.

FaintlyMacabre · 21/05/2023 11:24

And I would be prepared to (and in some cases already do)take on more expense and inconvenience to combat climate change and other environmental issues. But not while the real culprits are sitting on piles of money.

Blomonje · 21/05/2023 11:26

Kinder eggs. And little toys from kids party bags. Pointless little bits of plastic rubbish that barely get played with before they get binned.

And non biodegradable balloons. Plastic waste that gets littered around outdoors and kills wildlife.

Daftasabroom · 21/05/2023 11:26

Atishoos · 21/05/2023 11:12

We are just a little dot on world pollution scales, so until places like China and India etc. get their act together we are merely pissing in the wind.

Every little helps I suppose, but it seems to be a fruitless exercise to me due to the above.

The per Capita carbon footprint in India is a fraction of the UK and China is about the same.

Ladykryptonite · 21/05/2023 11:28

Street parking

JuneShitfield · 21/05/2023 11:28

FaintlyMacabre · 21/05/2023 11:21

A lot of this stuff is a very clever trick that the above mentioned global corporations have played on us all to shift responsibility from where it really lies. It makes me really angry that the solution to climate change apparently lies in making the lives of average people more expensive and inconvenient while allowing a few companies to continue to rake in billions of profit without consequence.

This. These threads always turn into green-eyed monsters with people simply articulating to remove choice and flexibility from others, which is the point I suppose. 'I don't personally like cars/planes/dogs/disposable nappies/plastic, so let's ban that'

midgemadgemodge · 21/05/2023 11:28

I know what you mean faintly but I don't think we have time to play who goes first

We need to change the norm so that those people understand increasingly that their lifestyle isn't seen as something to aim for but as a disgrace

To normalise behaviour that helps not harms the planet

To normalise behaviour that mean business know they have to step up to keep their business going

So that governments know they can't get elected if they continue to push everything down the line

notgojira · 21/05/2023 11:29

Ladykryptonite · 21/05/2023 11:28

Street parking

Why this? I used to live somewhere that only had street parking - it was a village with shocking public transport so there wasn't any other option

InanimateObjects · 21/05/2023 11:29

That is one of the worst articles I have ever read. It is completely misleading to the point of being an actual lie. The study betrays all the carbon accounting rules, either GHG Protocol or ISO 14k series. I'm horrified the the CDP sponsored it as they should know better.

There's lots of info on the CDP's own website about it.

www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-report-shows-just-100-companies-are-source-of-over-70-of-emissions

Lilifer · 21/05/2023 11:29

It's funny how several posters have popped up now on this thread to say that banning humans is the solution and yet none of them have addressed my question to them asking if they will be the first ones to volunteer to ban themselves and/or their loved ones in order to do their bit for climate change 🤔

ReviewingTheSituation · 21/05/2023 11:31

notsayingmuch · 21/05/2023 09:35

I don't think banning things is the way forward. I would love to see a deposit placed on every recyclable drink can and bottle and have some form of reverse vending machine where you can pay them in for a credit on an app. Even if the drinker didn't put the can into the machine, it would increase the chances of someone else picking it up and recycling it.

This is coming... google 'deposit return scheme'. Starting in Scotland first. It's going to be a right royal PITA.

Whereas now you can put all your drinks containers in your home recycling, you'll have to take them all (intact - no crushing or damage to the label) to a return point and feed them in individually. For them to be taken to the same place they would be if you put them in your household recycling. So it just creates huge inconvenience.

People's behaviour won't change out of home - single use bottles will still just get bunged in a bin.

The whole scheme is madness and it's going to cost millions.

Swrigh1234 · 21/05/2023 11:32

Banning items is usually an answer by stupid people that they are admitting defeat because they haven’t been able to invent a better scientific alternative.

musixa · 21/05/2023 11:33

Lilifer · 21/05/2023 11:29

It's funny how several posters have popped up now on this thread to say that banning humans is the solution and yet none of them have addressed my question to them asking if they will be the first ones to volunteer to ban themselves and/or their loved ones in order to do their bit for climate change 🤔

Groups who seriously advocate this route don't plan to euthanise the existing population - the plan would be that we just stop reproducing (anti-fatalism). Obviously if that happened the end-stage of human existence would be very painful as labour supplies for essential services dried up and some people might choose euthanasia rather than go through it, but that's how it would work.

Before you ask, no, I don't have children.

Cheesecakeandwineinasuitcase · 21/05/2023 11:34

Ladykryptonite · 21/05/2023 11:28

Street parking

Really? So where are you supposed to park your car then if you don’t have a driveway or designated parking space? How are high street shops supposed to survive if people stop bothering to visit the town centre because it’s impossible to find a parking space because once the only option if you have to drive is to park in the car park? I’m sure Amazon will do very well if that rule was implemented.

musixa · 21/05/2023 11:34

that should say 'anti-natalism' not fatalism.

Jobinterviewhelpme · 21/05/2023 11:35

midgemadgemodge · 21/05/2023 09:45

Carnivorous peters eat meat?

😂😂

midgemadgemodge · 21/05/2023 11:35

The people entrusted to protect our country - the government over the last 30 years - have failed

Failed to invest in the research and development and start up companies that could have helped tackle this

As a result much more draconian actions will be needed unless you are happy with climate change - until it's your home flooded, you baby killed in the heatwave

midgemadgemodge · 21/05/2023 11:35

Pets!!!!
Autocorrect is a wonderful thing!

InanimateObjects · 21/05/2023 11:36

The per Capita carbon footprint in India is a fraction of the UK and China is about the same.

Yes, but given there are a billion Chinese, what the UK population does will make no difference if they, and the US (who have roughly 1/3 population of China but emit 5 times as much per person) etc don't change their behaviour. We could emit zero and it wouldn't significantly change global trajectory, only highly populous and polluting countries changing their behaviour will enable any change in outcome.

Biscuitea · 21/05/2023 11:36

Electric cars and the money-making “green” lobby.

Ladykryptonite · 21/05/2023 11:37

Cheesecake - to encourage people to get rid of their cars and free up all that space for people

ShagratandGorbag4ever · 21/05/2023 11:37

Artificially assisted conception. Too many humans are bad for the environment and some of us need to not have children, to balance out those who have several. Yes, it's very sad for some individuals who would like to have them and can't, but if you look at the big picture, it simply does not make sense to pour resources into creating more people when there are too many already.