Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Climate Change

Imposing change - would you be in favour??

148 replies

Twattergy · 02/08/2022 18:41

Reading the climate change threads there is a lot about the changes we can make to do our bit for the environment. But my feeling is for the dial to shift some fundamental things need to be imposed on us, not a choice. Covid has shown us that people will manage restrictions of they have to. I think there should be:
-Compulsory water metering

  • Massive clamp down on water waste by water companies- like business threatening level fines
  • Restrict number of flights per person per annum and pay a significant tax if you need to do more
  • Product makers forced to ditch unnecessary packaging ( I acknowledge much food packaging reduced food waste so you can't just look at food)
  • My most extreme one is rationing of meat, the US and UK per capita consumption of meat is ridiculously high and all of us would be fine if we ate less of it (and yes govn would need to compensate meat producers, but furlough shows state compensation is possible if the need is strong enough).

There are others but those are my opening thoughts!

OP posts:
Daftasabroom · 09/08/2022 17:07

@AntlerRose

Purplepatsy · 09/08/2022 17:19

I really hope I am wrong, but I think climate change is out of control now, and any amount of recycling won't make much difference. I think it's human arrogance to believe that we can have much influence on planetary systems. Again, very happy to be proved wrong.

It's all very well having a discussion on an internet forum, and saying 'if we all did this, or that,' then climate change will halt, but the fact is, we don't all make changes, most people just talk about them.

If there was the slightest chance that climate change can be halted then of course governments need to impose restrictions, but they won't. Each political party is too scared of losing votes if they impose unpopular restrictions, and they don't want to upset big business owners.

Governments are short sighted and don't base policies on anything likely to lose them an election.

Daftasabroom · 09/08/2022 18:43

@Purplepatsy there is no doubt that climate change is a direct result of human activity, but this also means it is completely within our gift to control it. It's not a one way street.

Vote for the long term.

NotMeNoNo · 09/08/2022 18:56

@purplepatsy this is a good book with a global viewpoint, it made me think more positively.

The Future We Choose: 'Everyone should read this book' MATT HAIG www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07Y2B5ZCC/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_KYZXG8C03PNSBNHVW474

Purplepatsy · 09/08/2022 19:18

@Daftasabroom I think that's rather a strange conclusion to come to.
Yes, human activity can cause climate change, but it doesn't follow that we have the power to stop or reverse it.

@NotMeNoNo thank you, I will have a look.

gotelltheoldmandowntheroad · 09/08/2022 20:46

And how will we hold the wealthy elite accountable to ensure they are actually doing these things?

Daftasabroom · 10/08/2022 07:31

@Purplepatsy <a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi42Lvv0bv5AhXSEsAKHXe2Bp0QFnoECAkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0rWpmMACIrTGB4Rtdj80Sc" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The IPCC summary

We absolutely have the power to stop or reverse climate change, whether have the will is a completely different matter unfortunately.

Daftasabroom · 10/08/2022 07:34

Oops, that didn't work try here

Purplepatsy · 10/08/2022 10:04

@Daftasabroom Thank you. I looked at the report.

I also found this

www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60525591.amp

It depends on what you choose to believe, but I do think that no-one is prepared to actually put into words that climate change may be irreversible. It's too frightening.

Also, the planet itself may not progress with climate change in the ways predicted so far. Both reports are speculation and it is well known now that the global warming predictions of the past have accelerated more rapidly than expected.

As I said in an earlier post, I really hope I 'm wrong but I'm not optimistic.

Daftasabroom · 10/08/2022 10:29

@NotMeNoNo you posted: Also the companies that make money out of these things have no incentive, currently, to reveal how environmentally damaging they are. They need to be forced to publish/label things in an understandable way.

This already happens in some industries, at a product level (scope 3) construction is particularly ahead of other sectors - TATA steel for instance publish their product data here, Tarmac publish here.

Environmental Impact Assessments have been a legal planning requirement in the UK since 2017. Link here.

Also the big investment firms are increasingly active, Aviva are particularly progressive. The pension funds invest over the very long term and see unsustainable practises as a serious risk to their profits.

The Climate Disclosure Project is voluntary project publishing organisational data - scope 1 and 2. You'll need to register to the detail in the snip below.

Whether this is understandable or not I guess is up to the individual!

Personally I think there will be a requirement for organisations to publish data soon, much like a the modern slavery statement.

I get frustrated that there is so little media coverage of the good things that are being done but here is a start 39 Ways to Save the Planet

Imposing change - would you be in favour??
Imposing change - would you be in favour??
Plantstrees · 10/08/2022 11:09

Agree with most of the above and have some other items that are overdue to be banned completely:

Plastic bags and other single use plastics

Balloons, lanterns and disposable bbqs

Passiv house standards and sustainable materials for all new building work

Much higher standards for all new developments including large areas of land for recreational use but also large gardens to allow for residents to grow fruit and vegetables either communally or individually.

Safe cycle paths withing city centres. More restrictions on cars in city centres but this can only happen with improved public transport systems. Huge investment is needed and I don't see that happening!

I personally think that a hefty sales tax is the only way to curb spending. If goods become more expensive, people will buy less. The problem is that the economy will then shrink so the taxes need to be set according to the sustainability of the product to avoid this, i.e. lower taxes on more sustainable produce. In my view this will influence behaviour quicker than any other method without removing choice. We already have a system of VAT in place that could be adjusted to deal with this.

For example, solar panels are now zero-rated. We could stagger the VAT rates so put much higher rates on things like new cars, computers, phones and other gadgets and imported items such as cheap synthetic clothing/fast fashion and furnishings. The more expensive the item the higher the tax rate (e.g. A Ferrari would be taxed at a much higher rate than a small runaround car) to counter the issue that the poor would be hit worst. Lower rates could apply to sustainable products made in the UK or products from certified Fair Trade producers using sustainable methods abroad that support (but not exploit) people in third-world countries.

Second-hand items such as clothing and domestic furnishings could be zero-rated to encourage more re-use. Second-hand shops could become more commercially viable on the high street and not be just the domain of charity shops. In other places I have seen excellent recycling centres set up that are well-run, attractive places to shop where there is an element of cleaning, restoration and repair as required to make the goods very appealling to new buyers. They also offer decent structured employment opportunities and training rather than relying on the voluntary sector.

There are so many small things that can be done that would all help but most importantly we need to reduce the waste that is caused by over-consumption of non-essential goods. Such waste was unheard of 50 years ago as the ratio of average earnings to product prices was very different and meant that people purchased much less. Our consumer economy is ruining the planet. I know that the UK is a small fraction of the whole but surely it is up to the more developed countries to lead by example.

Sorry for the long post but feel passionately that we should be doing so much more!

Purplepatsy · 10/08/2022 11:20

Thank you for the link to 39 ways to save the planet. There are some interesting podcasts. But, like the debates on climate change and the reports published, they remain ideas and discussion, without action.

It's easy to talk about saving the planet and I appreciate that many firms do their best, within the confines of their own interests.

Aviva, for example, are a progressive firm, but look at the reasoning behind it. Failing to act will damage their profits in the long term. The need to generate profit is, unfortunately, far greater than the need to protect the planet.

Greta Thunberg was, probably still is, although I haven't heard anything from her in ages, passionate about preventing climate change but the poor girl was vilified, mocked and harangued. Those in power simply didn't want uncomfortable truths pointing out to them.

pollypokcet · 10/08/2022 11:26

I would like to know if the royal family are making changes or is just the poor put upon tax paying wage slaves that are supposed to make the sacrifices.

In an ideal world, everyone would do their bit but it's very stupid to base your actions on the royal family. Do you care or are you nuts using them as a justification not to? Nobody who genuinely cares enough to act would make it contingent on what billionaires are doing.

Purplepatsy · 10/08/2022 11:27

@Plantstrees You have some excellent ideas.

I know that the UK is a small fraction of the whole but surely it is up to the more developed countries to lead by example

This is the crux of it. There is no reason to suppose that other countries will give any thought at all to what the UK is doing, and I don't see them being the slightest bit influenced by what we do.

One of the main problems is simply too many people on the planet.

BruisedSkies · 10/08/2022 11:31

One thing I’d like to see less of is all the shitty plastic toys you get everywhere. Kids magazines, kinder eggs, party bags, toy aisle. Most of that stuff will break fairly quickly and not get handed down. Whenever I see stuff like that, I imagine it on landfill, or broken and washed up on a beach somewhere. I can’t imagine how much of it is produced and shopped around the world every day. It’s so depressing.

Also, stop making so many bloody clothes that are also shit. So many are so thin and see through. They get holes in so quickly.

it all comes down to buying less crap.

pollypokcet · 10/08/2022 11:31

Great ideas @Plantstrees

NotMeNoNo · 10/08/2022 15:02

The point is, the human driven effects on the climate may not be fully reversible, that is why a +1.5 degree target has been agreed. We need to think in terms of mitigation and reasonably coordinated efforts towards reducing emissions, will still go towards reducing the speed of the runaway train.

We need to get used to a different world. Annual holiday flights, cheap meat, personal cars might soon be history like horse drawn carts and gas lamps. The benefit is the hope of a habitable planet in 20/30 years.

Actually I saw on TV yesterday the coffee growing industry is under threat as the main varieties don't grow in the warmer climate or something. This should be publicised more! I choose coffee over beefburgers .

Daftasabroom · 10/08/2022 16:44

@Purplepatsy the BBC article also contradicts itself.

One of my bugbears is that reporting on the science and technology of climate change. adaption and mitigation is truly appalling. The BBC is generally pretty good as is the Independent. The Guardian, Telegraph and Times are equally as bad as each other, I've even found misleading articles in Nature before. i don't even bother to look at the tabloids.

Even the NewScientist get sucked in, the headlines are more shouty than the text but this is really dangerous stuff. Scope 3 emissions actually allow, and even encourage double accounting of emissions but when seemingly respectable organisations portray Scope 3 as Scope 1 it promulgates and reinforces delay arguments that it's all down to big corporations. Yes big corporations have a very big role to play, but so do governments, local governments, SMEs, individuals, clubs, schools, NGOs and charities etc etc. It really will take a united effort and any one who suggests otherwise is deceiving themselves and others.

Daftasabroom · 12/08/2022 14:55

A bit of a bump, but an interesting read here

WanderingFruitWonderer · 13/08/2022 13:44

Interesting thread. I'm a vegan, so I'm biased, but I think everyone should go vegan! If not, then consumption of animal products needs to be seen as occasional. I actually first became a vegan due to animal rights, but was delighted when I heard it's by far and away the most sustainable way to eat. It's so easy nowadays.
I like many of the other suggestions on the thread so far. I wonder if there could be incentives for more car sharing? Or maybe reduced price bikes for those willing to go car free? We need heavily-subsidised, affordable public transport. Maybe community food growing schemes? Kind of community allotments? Making local organic food affordable (and enjoyable) for all.
I'm not in favour of any kind of one-child policy by law. I think that'd be dangerous, and potentially very harmful to women in particular. However, I do think we're at the point now where having more than two children needs to be seen as very anti-social. More than two children, and more than one car needs to be frowned upon, as smoking now is. People who decide not to have children, due to the climate crisis need to be seen as the selfless heroes that they are. Flying limited to essential only. Ban SUVs. I'll let you know if I can think of any more!

WanderingFruitWonderer · 13/08/2022 14:00

Actually, upon reflection, I'm a bit worried that my suggestion having more than two children should be seen as anti-social, could cause offence to some. Obviously I'm aware that multiple births and unplanned pregnancies happen, and it'd be awful if there was a culture of maternal shame. Maybe the focus should be on applauding those who limit family size, rather than judging those who don't? I don't know! It's tricky, as I don't want to offend anyone; but the fact is that if everyone had 3 or more children at this point we'd be stuffed. Not sure what to think...

hotfroth · 13/08/2022 14:25

I have a few suggestions:

Forcing rural councils to at least quadruple the number of buses through villages to towns, and to reinstate those routes which have previously been cancelled.

The national speed limit should be reduced from 70 to 60 on motorways and dual carriageways, and to 50 on all roads which are currently unrestricted.

There should be laws brought in to absolutely minimise the amount of plastic packaging on goods, particularly food.

All council charges for recycling and green waste disposal should be scrapped.

This one will be popular All fossil fuel-powered vehicles less than 10 years old (except commercial) with an engine size over 1.6 to attract a minimum of £5,000 annual road tax, going up to £10k for those over 2.5l. In the case of company vehicles this is to be paid personally by the driver, not the business, and the cost cannot be offset against income tax.

All property developers to be prohibited from removing any existing native trees and hedgerows from development sites, with a minimum fine of £1million for any infringements + £100k fine per tree or 10m hedge.

MichelleScarn · 13/08/2022 16:16

All fossil fuel-powered vehicles less than 10 years old (except commercial) with an engine size over 1.6 to attract a minimum of £5,000 annual road tax, going up to £10k for those over 2.5l. In the case of company vehicles this is to be paid personally by the driver, not the business, and the cost cannot be offset against income tax.
Do you think businesses will care what vehicles they make their staff take, especially if they're not affected by tax? Its the employee that will be affected and then if they can't afford this and lose their job?

Daftasabroom · 14/08/2022 10:44

@hotfroth

Rural councils already struggle financially, quadrupling the number of buses would bankrupt most of them. Much to better to look at car shares or dial-up mini-bus service (bit like a not for profit uber). Bristol and other cities are also setting up personal electric vehicle hire schemes for once people have got into the city.

I'm okay with the current motorway speed limits, however, urban limits should be 20mph or 30mph. ALL new vehicles should be fitted with automatic stop/start for when stationary at traffic lights etc. This could have been done 20 years ago.

Packaging should be required to have a limit or even ban on multiple materials to aid recycling.

Again dropping charges for recycling, councils would just go bust.

Arbitrarily choosing a vehicle age and engine size makes no sense and punitive taxation even less. We already have RFL on an escalating scale according to actual emissions, this could be applied to more vehicles easily enough.

Again punitive damages, which we don't use in the UK, and this really wouldn't help the housing crisis or improve the quality of housing. Much better to require housing to be built to a higher specification.

bellac11 · 14/08/2022 10:49

Just on the nappies thing I thought I had also read that disposible nappies have made it slower/more difficult for children to be toilet trained, not sure if I have imagined that, so if thats true then it would help in other ways to reduce those