Imposing change - would you be in favour??

[Twattergy]

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!

Or extend Section 34 of The Environmental Protection Act 1990 to packaging.

On our own, what the UK does is pointless, we need EU cooperation, they are a huge trading bloc and can/do demand no trade deals unless environmental considerations are inc... i'd add usually

We also can't all move at the same speed, so some countries will still need coal, we also need to the end this fucking war, its causing huge damage.

In the UK, I'd have jail for company bosses that don't look after the environment, water companies are handing out huge bonuses, whilst dumping sewage and allowing leakages... for that we need Govt to have better regulation or nationalise.
Also need govt intervention of insulation and energy conservation.

India, China & USA need to being all they can, so God help us is Trump a clone of his, gets back in

I feel as though the issue with a lot of regulation is that it either becomes incredibly bureaucratic or it screws over some people in a way people might not have thought about.

e.g. all talk of everyone going vegan/eating almost no meat - I have IBS and have an intolerance of beans, pulses and legumes that is equivalent to lactose intolerance. I simply cannot eat them. I also can't eat large quantities of vegetables as they disagree with me - I eat some because I don't want to have no vitamins but I would really really struggle without meat and dairy.

But I am very happy to cut down my car use, and would give up my car entirely if there was an affordable car club option with enough cars. I bought an electric bike this year and in terms of substituted car miles it has already paid back the carbon cost of its production.

Everyone has different things they're prepared to sacrifice so I tend to think taxation that significantly discourages non eco friendly things seems like the way to go - maybe with a tax rebate you can apply for if you need an un-eco-friendly thing for health reasons e.g. wheelchair users etc?

You can't really just ban baths either - for some people with disabilities a hot soak will massively increase their mobility for example.

I don't know if it is the answer but I can't think of an easy way to manage the fact that people have different needs. I am not sure how you would deal with the very wealthy just choosing to make really un-eco-friendly choices because they can afford to. Maybe for some things that aren't food you could make the taxation income based rather than based on the cost of the product.

Would be good if we could just stop wasting stuff. My mum threw out a cabbage... because the outer leaves went a bit soft and yellow. Effort and resources were put in to grow that cabbage, transport it, sell it, transport it home, store it in the fridge, take it in the bin lorry etc etc... If she hadn't bought it or had just peeled back the outer layers, it wouldn't all have been wasted, but because it only cost 50p it was easy to replace.

Same with why the heck are we flushing toilets with drinking water? All that treatment and pumping etc, just to flush it away.

And insulation, heating a home in winter, ends up heating the earth, what a waste.

Fed up of being told "if only you'd recycle that milk carton etc etc..." stop the waste first.

Yes it seemed to fizzle out with Covid.

"I don't know if it is the answer but I can't think of an easy way to manage the fact that people have different needs. I am not sure how you would deal with the very wealthy just choosing to make really un-eco-friendly choices because they can afford to. Maybe for some things that aren't food you could make the taxation income based rather than based on the cost of the product."

In an ideal world I'd like everyone to have a carbon/planetary impact allowance. You could "spend" that how you liked, so you could use more on baths than someone else but not spend anything on petrol, for instance. Someone else might have lots of holidays but no children. The super rich wouldn't be able to pay their way out of it as it's not a money-based system but a rationing system.

This would be impossible to calculate of course, and also to enforce. -And the super rich would find a way round it. But I like to daydream.

Yes that's what I'd do too ideally. I just can't think how you'd possibly administer it. Especially as people couldn't have the same carbon budgets - again someone who was disabled and needed a car and perhaps to get to hospital appointments some distance away couldn't then be housebound due to having used their carbon budget. You could potentially make healthcare needs free or something I guess but again I just don't know how it would be practicable and even if it was practicable - our phones know everything after all, I'm still not sure I'm happy with the state literally teaching everybody's every move with is the only way I think you could run it. I'm pretty keen on big government but that's a step too far even for me.

Oh, yes, I love the idea of a carbon allowance. I wonder if there is a way?
Does anyone have any ideas about how to engage with deniers? I find it totally astounding that anyone could still be in denial, when it's happening before our eyes! But I still encounter them, and they have a large, and in my view dangerous, online presence. How can we respectfully, peacefully, convince them of the reality and seriousness of this crisis?

Thing is this is a worldwide issue. Or is it just folks in the UK who need to have a carbon allowance. THAT is where people baulk at the idea. Why just us again?

How does the whole carbon allowance worldwide allow for air conditioning in countries regularly 40C+, or heating when regularly -. Electric cars in most parts of the UK are fine... how about in Northern Canada, or rural Kenya.

We need to think globally. Which brings questions of "western" affluent privilege into thinking. Should countries that are not so technologically advanced stop advancing? Coal fired power stations are still a thing in "poorer" nations. If we export our manufacturing (and carbon load) to India and China, shouldn't we also export our cleaner methods, or ... cynically... would that make it more expensive for us in the countries that buy the crap rather than make it?

Have to agree

A EU emissions trading scheme for big business was set up in 2005. This doesn't operate at a personal level but for businesses the consumer buys things from.

Focussing on trees would be a good plce to start.

Chopping down mature trees should be almost impossible, save for a very real risk to property or life. And this happens a lot less than people think, because tree roots just are not as damaging as they are made out to be - they mostly go in a different direction if they meet resistance. I see so many people tear down trees from their gardens that are doing no harm at all.

And many, many more trees in streets. Streets should not be allowed with less than a large tree every 20-30m - planted already with good maturity and with a large height potential.

The trees protect us form the worst of sound pollution, the worst of air pollution and make our living areas considerably cooler in summer.

@CravenRaven I'm not denying tree's are great, but the simple fact is that roughly 75% of carbon emissions come from burning fossil fuels so that is where we need to focus.

Definitely agree with all of these!

"install thousands of public water fountains and water bottle filling stations in towns, stations, airports, shopping centres, at tourist attractions."

There is some way to go in terms of provision, but Scotland now has a map of these.

Mature trees die and become dangerous so ultimately every tree needs to be cut down. You can't just not cut them down. I do however agree that they shouldn't be felled unnecessarily but many trees are grown as a commercial product and are planted solely for the purpose of producing wood. If I can't cut the trees I plant, why grow them? How will I build my fences to keep my stock in if I can't coppice my chestnut trees?

The important point is that I always plant at least two trees for every one felled.

Also dishwashers - I don't have one but my DM does and insists on rinsing everything before it goes in the dishwasher - she uses more water doing that than I do washing up!

People who already have dishwashers, if they use them properly, will use about 8-10 litres of water per cycle. That's only one washing up bowl full, for a full day's/3 meals washing up, which would be hard to match with handwashing.

If you don't already have a dishwasher you might decide not to have the carbon footprint/water use of the manufacturing process of a new one and it probably won't make that much difference if you are economical with your hot water.

I think it's one of those questions where it doesn't make a deal of difference which you choose, it's just personal preference. Not everything has to be a battle.

www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/aug/19/carbon-footprints-dishwasher-washing-up

Nudge rather than meet head on.

Talk to the lurkers who are reading.

Emotional appeal. Individual stories.

Make it cheap and easy. The environmental options need to be cheaper and easier than other options.

I don't think we can do much about the climate changing enough to warrant any huge changes. But landfill is an issue and there is already a policy solution that could be imposed:

It's called something like end-to-end ownership or full life ownership or something - pretty self-explanatory. It's where you give companies responsibility for the entire life of their products.

So instead of selling coffee pods and be done with it, they sell coffee pods then those coffee pods remain theirs for all eternity so they will have to put something in place to recycle them or take them back, destroy, whatever but it's THEIR responsibility and it's them who gets fined for not doing so.

So where one might throw all their coffee pods in the trash, instead the company has to do something like organise collection of them. Not sure what but it would be all ON THEM.

And I think that's the way to go. Nappies, plastic packaging etc. etc. Maybe they could be exempt if they used all recycled materials or something. Not sure on details but you get the idea.

"Make it cheap and easy. The environmental options need to be cheaper and easier than other options."

I'd like to start with public transport. It is often more expensive to travel by public transport than to drive, even for one person, and this shouldn't be the case. My daughter costed up her commute for her new job - £6 a day on the bus, £3 a day in petrol. We then added in estimated yearly costs for the car (tax, servicing etc) and they were about even. That's not right.

Plus the state of the trains in particular is woeful at the moment. You can't plan a journey and have any confidence in getting there on time.

@Remainiac no baths?! How would you wash small children? This seems extreme

I “bathe” my small DGCs in the shower. Keeping baths purely to wash small children is a luxury we don’t need when water is in short supply.

Especially with the constant striking

I'm sure they have their reasons

I only buy coffee in a disposable cup once or twice a year eg on a day trip to London when I am travelling light with no bag, just my phone in my back pocket.
If I had to buy a reusable cup, I’d simply bin it once I’d drunk the coffee, wasting more raw materials than a cardboard cup.
And no thank you, I wouldn’t like a reusable cup for Christmas. We already own several and don’t need any more.
We need to reduce the amount of stuff we use and stop buying Christmas gifts for colleagues