Why are certain people completely apathetic or opposed to the idea of tackling climate change?

[WelshBluebird]

I still can't believe that it is 2023 and some people, even here, are trying to argue that climate change isn't happening and that somehow reducing pollution is a bad thing.

 

[AlterEgo]

ULEZ isn't about climate change, it is about particulate emissions which damage people's health. A majority of people in London support it, so any claims that the measure is unfair or undemocratic are wide of the mark. There is demonstrably cleaner air as a result.

Cleaner air and greener trees ought to be the bedrock of any small-c conservative ideal, but many conservatives are really just free marketeers and industrial brigands who use conservatism as a way of simply defending the status quo which gave them their success in the first place.

 

[Blindtraveler]

To directly answer the OPs question as to why people aren't tackling it, the answer is very simple. It doesn't exist. It's not a thing. It's something that the media, board of writing about domestically generated doom and bloom have been using as a way to fill column inches and in more recent times flood social media with for decades and it needs to stop. If there was a real emergency then we would know about it, but there isn't and it's just an excuse for activists and tree huggers and the extremes and sometimes drags of society to bang their gums and protest and demonstrate at the inconvenience of everybody else who are trying to get on with our normal everyday lives. The sooner that someone stamps down on this absolute load of rubbish the better for stop why should any of us be made to feel guilty for having a shower or taking an aeroplane? Lord only knows this is a rail forum and I don't think anybody on here would deny that the state of our rail network at this exact moment in time is possibly one of the best sales techniques for alternatives to rail that the people marketing said alternatives could ask for




Why would I want for example a heat pump that doesn't work and leaves me having to buy and use expensive electric fires or oil-filled radiators or calor gas heaters just to smooth the ego and boost the profits of someone that says we have a climate emergency? Enough I say, find something else to get yourselves arrested for if you must but this so-called environmental emergency that everyone shouts about far too frequently is simply not a thing

 

[Bantamzen]

The fourth question should be

Who pays the cost of all the changes needed to combat climate change?

This is at the heart of issues such as ULEZ, banning of new gas boilers and their replacement by heat pumps, banning of new petrol cars... etc.

People may well be sympathetic to issues regarding climate change and global warming, but they simply cannot afford the cost of the changes that are imposed on them by the authorities, with little or no consultation.

And this is the most important question of all, and one left generally unanswered by people pressing for rapid change. What is the economic cost of taking measures to reduce carbon emissions?

For example, I recently saw a Twitter post with someone asking why everyone can't be like them and have an EV, complete with a picture of their nice detached house, large drive and of course EV connected to their charging unit. What he didn't ask is how can everyone else afford to have an EV, and a charging unit? Or can they even have a charging unit at their home? Many people calling for rapid change simply can't seem to comprehend that not everyone can even afford to change, at least not for some time.

Another example is for those calling for people to stop flying abroad. What remains unanswered is what happens to the economies left without their important source of revenue? A few years ago I was chatting to a local on a Greek island and they saying that tourism made up over 70% of their GDP, and that shutting the industry would destroy the islands and that everyone would leave. But to where? The Greek economy away from tourism isn't exactly doing great, and almost certainly would not be able to take up much slack. And this picture is replicated around the world. And all for a small proportion of emissions, whilst much bigger sources continue unabated.

Personally I honestly believe that fiddling around the edges is not going to have any real impact. We should be concentrating minds on the really big sources of emissions, such as energy production. Clearly there have been big moves towards sustainable energy sourcing, but in the rush we forgot that we need a solution to the problem of energy being produced when demand is low, i.e. storage. Solve that and we can pretty much start to wind down carbon based production, with nuclear sitting as a medium term solution until fully green production & storage can supply all our needs. And of course we can all help by keeping check on our use at home and work, reduce food waste etc, etc.

Solving the issue of man-made climate change is a long term project, so people clamouring for insta-solutions need to come to terms with that. Instead of gluing themselves to things, they should maybe instead apply themselves into figuring out solutions and how to enable them in the global economies, without damaging large parts of it. Otherwise people will reject them. Also I suspect that there are some people chucking orange power around who are simply seeking attention, and want to be credited with saving the world. But that's just my opinion!

 

[VauxhallandI]

It feels like Covid MKII, another cult.

I particularly love the older eco warriors who have had a nice life and now want to tell the young to change.

 

[geoffk]

There are a lot of conspiracy theorists about. They appear to believe that climate change has been invented or exaggerated for ideological or financial reasons. During Covid we had the "anti-vaxxers" who held similar beliefs. Furthermore, several studies have shown that those who voted for Brexit are twice as likely to believe that climate change is not caused by human activity!

 

[Cdd89]

I think the main reason is an “it’s not fair” reaction when comparing ourselves to other countries. The contributing factors to and effects of climate change are global; why should the citizens of any single country accept being substantially poorer (for minimal effect, because no single smaller country can have much effect in isolation even if it eliminated all emissions) while other countries are acting in a disgusting and profligate manner, whether that’s Putin releasing tons of gas into the atmosphere or just the US refusing to give up their addition to polluting cars?

 

[birchesgreen]

I still can't believe that it is 2023 and some people, even here, are trying to argue that climate change isn't happening and that somehow reducing pollution is a bad thing.

Oh come on, this can be a very right wing forum, you can't be that surprised surely?

 

[Bantamzen]

It feels like Covid MKII, another cult.

I particularly love the older eco warriors who have had a nice life and now want to tell the young to change.

It does feel a little that way, certainly watching some of the 'Just Stop Oil' campaigners you'd think that we were literally years or months from the end of the world. I'm pretty certain we aren't. But I think we have moved into an era where people think that in order to change anything you have to name, shame, blame & scare the crap out of people. The problem with that is that it simply doesn't work, sooner or later the scare effect wears off, especially when those people look outside and see another typical British summer. And in countries where there is extreme poverty, war, crime, corruption, scaring people with theories that they might burn sometime in the future won't even register. Scare tactics are quite frankly a quaint, but slightly annoying Middle England thing to do. Let's face it, most of the younger people gluing themselves to things, or playing with orange stuff will get bored sooner or later and move on to working at Daddy's company in the city...

 

[Scousemouse]

I'll be dead before it actually affects me too greatly and I don't have kids so I don't care enough to stop driving and holidaying. Live whilst I'm alive thank you very much,.

 

[VauxhallandI]

There are a lot of conspiracy theorists about. They appear to believe that climate change has been invented or exaggerated for ideological or financial reasons. During Covid we had the "anti-vaxxers" who held similar beliefs. Furthermore, several studies have shown that those who voted for Brexit are twice as likely to believe that climate change is not caused by human activity!

There are as many conspiracy theories on the other side.

For the record, I didn't vote for Brexit and I have never voted Conservative.

 

[AlterEgo]

It does feel a little that way, certainly watching some of the 'Just Stop Oil' campaigners you'd think that we were literally years or months from the end of the world. I'm pretty certain we aren't. But I think we have moved into an era where people think that in order to change anything you have to name, shame, blame & scare the crap out of people. The problem with that is that it simply doesn't work, sooner or later the scare effect wears off, especially when those people look outside and see another typical British summer. And in countries where there is extreme poverty, war, crime, corruption, scaring people with theories that they might burn sometime in the future won't even register. Scare tactics are quite frankly a quaint, but slightly annoying Middle England thing to do. Let's face it, most of the younger people gluing themselves to things, or playing with orange stuff will get bored sooner or later and move on to working at Daddy's company in the city...

The problem with JSO is none of them really want to sacrifice anything meaningful to them.

A bit of jail time or a crowdfunded fine will not affect the prospects of most of the activists, but one thing they will not withstand is violence. This all stops once someone gets seriously hurt. Civil Rights of the 60s they ain't.

 

[MikeWM]

It feels like Covid MKII, another cult.

This is increasingly my issue with the whole thing. We're taking something that is indeed an issue [1], and elevating it to some sort of existential crisis, endless fear pumped out by the same media and scientists that got almost everything wrong about covid ('the planet is on fire', 'global boiling'), the closing down of debate with labels like 'deniers', and the 'solution' is again for the regular people to take a massive cut in their quality of life, with a convenient side-effect of a massive increase in the powers of the state.

The *difference* here is that with Covid we had a situation where were told the highly negative changes we 'needed' to make to our lives were very temporary, and the consequences for not doing so were the likely death of you or people you love *in the immediate future*. With climate change, we're told we have to make significant and permanent negative changes to the quality of our lives, and the consequences for not doing so are both abstract and distant. Many people who went along with the former are not going to do so with the latter.

People generally want to take care of the environment - the old concept of 'stewardship'. What people don't want is to take a massive cut in the quality of their life for an unclear benefit, which is all entirely pointless anyway unless other countries such as China and India start making massive changes too.


[1] whatever one thinks of the specifics of 'greenhouse gases' and their effect on climate, we have put an awful lot of stuff into the atmosphere in the last 150 years, and it would be naive to assume that doesn't have *any* effect at all.

 

[brad465]

And this is the most important question of all, and one left generally unanswered by people pressing for rapid change. What is the economic cost of taking measures to reduce carbon emissions?

And what is the economic cost of not taking measures to reduce carbon emissions? We assume that just because money isn't spent, that we have saved all that money, but if there are increased costs elsewhere in future, we haven't saved all that money, and in the long run may even have spent more than if the early investment was made (this applies to all areas of finance/business, not just climate change mitigation and adaptation). I would like to see more outlets and studies actually publish this to better inform our decisions and understanding.

Also, many actions to combat/manage climate change have benefits beyond the effects of climate change: saving money in the long run is possible through renewable energy production and energy saving measures like insulation, there's also a cleaner prettier environment through increased recycling and/or habitat restoration, among others.

 

[Silenos]

Part of the problem is that the consequences of not acting are separated in time from the failure to take the action. So when hundreds of thousands of people start finding that their houses regularly flood and they can’t get any insurance; when people in the U.K. start losing houses every year to out-of-control field fires; when regular crop failures result in periodic food restrictions even in developed countries; when refugee numbers start to become genuinely likely to swamp more northerly countries (instead of being a right-wing shibboleth); when getting your water from a standpipe becomes a normal part of a British summer - then people will start demanding that someone - not them, obviously - do something about it. But by that time the changes will be -um- baked in, so to speak.

So I’m afraid it’s another End-Permian extinction event on the cards.

 

[Bantamzen]

Part of the problem is that the consequences of not acting are separated in time from the failure to take the action. So when hundreds of thousands of people start finding that their houses regularly flood and they can’t get any insurance; when people in the U.K. start losing houses every year to out-of-control field fires; when regular crop failures result in periodic food restrictions even in developed countries; when refugee numbers start to become genuinely likely to swamp more northerly countries (instead of being a right-wing shibboleth); when getting your water from a standpipe becomes a normal part of a British summer - then people will start demanding that someone - not them, obviously - do something about it. But by that time the changes will be -um- baked in, so to speak.

So I’m afraid it’s another End-Permian extinction event on the cards.

Only one slight problem with that post, most of it has been happening for years, some decades and even centuries. But thank you for demonstrating the kind of scare tactic that people will quickly tire of.

But not wanting to ignore the issue, here's an alternative way to encourage change, though be warned it requires actual effort rather than easy clichés. How about striving to make the greener energy sources cheaper? Then instead of blaming the public, you can ask them "would you like cheaper energy?". I'm pretty sure you'd onboard people far more actively than trying to shame them. Now let's have a debate as to how to make that happen maybe?

 

[SteveP29]

what are the concerns? I don't understand the issue tbh: If a second hand 13 year old diesel powered BWM is exempt then most vehicles will be exempt!

I have just done a UK wide check and I WOULD pay in ULEZ charges in Birmingham & Bristol but nowhere else - in honesty that doesn't seem unreasonable for having an older oil burner ( which I now sadly don't have)


As for right wing: It is all over the right wing press, social media and influencer networks and is being happily regurgitated by the hard of thinking as a crucial anti woke issue. The Tories have drawn the (incorrect in my view) conclusion that because they retained Uxbridge on a wafer thin majority due to a distorted ULEZ issue then this will be repeated around the country.

I wish I could like that final paragraph 100 times.

 

[Silenos]

Only one slight problem with that post, most of it has been happening for years, some decades and even centuries.

Of course it has. The processes have been long in motion. Our civilisation has already begun its collapse, which is why life seems to be getting harder for more and more people - it’s just that we don’t have the vantage point to see it because we’re up too close.

And it will go on, slowly degrading, forcing acceptance that things that were once commonplace are no longer available, affordable or feasible, and each problem will come closer on the heels of the last, making resilience ever more difficult, while people with vested interests smugly assure others that there’s really not a problem.

As William Gibson famously said: the future is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed.

 

[infobleep]

I have a friend who doesn't believe in climate change.

So I said imagine if we were not causing climate change and it was natural but it would be bad for us. Should we do anything?

They just reacted with a laugh emoji.

 

[tomuk]

Most people agree with JSO's end goal, just not the methods they are using to achieve it.

What is their end goal?

 

[MikeWM]

Of course it has. The processes have been long in motion. Our civilisation has already begun its collapse, which is why life seems to be getting harder for more and more people - it’s just that we don’t have the vantage point to see it because we’re up too close.

And it will go on, slowly degrading, forcing acceptance that things that were once commonplace are no longer available, affordable or feasible, and each problem will come closer on the heels of the last, making resilience ever more difficult, while people with vested interests smugly assure others that there’s really not a problem.

You're right, but so far climate change hasn't played any meaningful part in that.

Those pushing net zero seem to want us to accelerate that process *further* (!), by forcing us to give up eating meat, heating our homes properly, driving a car or going on foreign holidays.

A cynic may suggest that as the decline of western civilization is ongoing, a clever political class would try to persuade the people that the sacrifices they were voluntarily making, or being forced to make, were 'necessary' and for some greater good, rather than because they have mismanaged almost everything for decades now. Far better to get the people to agree to their own decline ('ah, things are getting worse because they have to because climate change') than face up to the fact that it didn't have to be this way ('why are things getting worse? Why are the politicians so useless?').

 

[deltic]

There may well have been a "consultation" over ULEZ, but that is of little consolation if you find yourself having to pay £12.50 per day and not being able to afford to replace your vehicle with one that is ULEZ compliant.

And there is a ban on new petrol and diesel cars, from 2030 in the UK, and 2035 in the EU.

UK 2030 petrol and diesel sales ban: what is it and what cars are affected? | Auto Express

The ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars is set to be introduced in 2030, we explain what it means for you and your motor

www.autoexpress.co.uk

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2023 ==



it is amusing to note that someone who has concerns about ULEZ is labelled "right wing".

As the articles highlight there is an aspiration to ban new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 but there is no legislation to implement it. Government can announce its going to ban lots of things but until legislation is in place then there is no ban.

 

[Sorcerer]

Whilst China produces twice the emissions of the USA, it should be noted that with a population of 1,412 million Vs the USA's 332 million (a factor of 4.25) the per person emissions of the USA are actually about double that of China.

I'll give you this one since it's a very good point to raise and puts things in more perspective.

If the USA were to reduce their personal emissions to half way between where they are and China's (or the UK as both are similar) that would cut global emissions by about 4%.

Can you maybe clarify what you mean by this? UK emissions are considerably lower than the US and China's (1.1% vs 14% and 30% respectively) but I'm not sure if you're talking on a per capita basis which I don't know the figures of or if you meant something else entirely.

Someone did an experiment where they have people data showing the advantages of reduced car use, one focused on cost, one focused on health and a third focused on the environmental benefits, none of the had a material impact.

There was however a fourth leaflet, which showed that others were reducing their car usage, which had the biggest impact on car usage.

Now, whilst the two biggest craters of carbon (the USA and China) may have the biggest impact on global emissions, however they're not going to change if no one else is.

By showing the USA that we've reduced our personal carbon emissions from being where they are now (they were noticeable higher at the time we were at that time) and we've still got a good standard of living (i.e. we've not had to live in caves to do so) then there's a higher chance that they will continue adding their path to decarbonisation.

By showing China that it's possible not to need to burn coal to create power it should be possible to become a developed nation without having to go through the process of having steam trains, as technology has allowed certain steps to be missed. If you can skip out having steam trains, what other steps can you also skip but still get to the same end result?

For example China has a much more advanced EV market than we do (over double the percentage of new cars are EV's and the top 4 cars are all EV's, with a further 2 in the top ten and only one pure ICE in the top ten).

Likewise they have seen high speed rail use raise significantly at they've rapidly built their network, which means they are less reliant on internal flights to get around their country.

If we replicated those successes and had a few more of our own, we could further demonstrate how it's possible to have a developed world lifestyle without needing to burn significant amounts of oil and gas.

I am somewhat sceptical of the idea of China looking over to the UK and thinking "maybe we should follow their lead", however I would definitely argue that they're in a better position to do so since it's a one-party state that doesn't have to deal with eco-lunatics or climate-deniers alike, and they have also experienced an intense heatwave that could easily push them into making better policy-making decisions such as more nuclear energy instead of coal which definitely wouldn't pass so easily over here because of green movements opposing it for some strange reason, along with high-speed rail to replace domestic air travel. Whether they care enough to implement them remains to be seen though.

But as for the US, I definitely don't think they'll be looking to emulate us anytime soon. American exceptionalism knows no bounds, and combined with heavily decentralised power and powerful lobbying capabilities from fossil fuel companies I wouldn't hold my breath on them taking serious action anytime soon. Already we saw these same fossil fuel companies like ExxonMobil suppress information about climate change decades ago, and also the effect of car companies lobbying power resulting in heavily car-dependent infrastructure that won't make switching to cycling and public transit investment as practical as it could be. I actually can't believe that Florida of all places is going in the right direction with Brightline (it is a private company admittedly but still).

 

[Essan]

I'll be dead before it actually affects me too greatly and I don't have kids so I don't care enough to stop driving and holidaying. Live whilst I'm alive thank you very much,.

That's no doubt what people in Canada, Southern Europe, North Africa, Iran, India, SE Asia, China, Japan and S Korea also thought - all places that have experienced record heatwaves and/or record extreme rainfall this year, with deadly consequences. Oh, and there's an unprecedented heatwave in S America atm too.

The problem is we didn't listen to the scientists in the 60s*. Or the 70s. Or the 80s. Or the 90s. Or the 2000s. Or the 2010s. And now it's effectively too late.

(*Callendar first raised the issue in the 1930s!)

 

[SargeNpton]

Climate change has been happening ever since the planet was first formed, some of it gradual and some of it sudden - caused by factors on Earth and in the rest of the Solar System.

For the current situation what needs to be determined is how much is down to those natural factors and how much is down to mankind's actions. And for the latter, what can be done to mitigate or reverse that impact.

To my mind, the biggest manmade cause is population increase. In 1950 the estimated global population was around 2½ billion and it's now around 8 billion. The population trebling in size in 70 years puts a huge strain on the resources available to sustain them: land for housing, land for food, water supplies, energy, jobs, health care.

Until the global birthrate reduces to zero (or even negative) we don't really have a chance of reducing the human factors of climate change.

 

[bleeder4]

Climate change has been happening ever since the planet was first formed, some of it gradual and some of it sudden - caused by factors on Earth and in the rest of the Solar System.

For the current situation what needs to be determined is how much is down to those natural factors and how much is down to mankind's actions. And for the latter, what can be done to mitigate or reverse that impact.

Absolutely. Climate change itself is entirely natural, part of the lifecycle of a planet. Even if humanity were not around at the moment, the planet would still be heating up. The question is to what extent (if any) we have accelerated the process. We also need to bear in mind that this a year where El Nino is at its most active, so this was always going to be a hot summer for those near the equator and tropics.

As others have said, the largest contributors are the US and China so, on the grand scheme of things, it makes absolutely no difference at all if I switch my gas boiler to a heat pump, or my petrol car to an electric one.

 

[Essan]

Climate change has been happening ever since the planet was first formed, some of it gradual and some of it sudden - caused by factors on Earth and in the rest of the Solar System.

For the current situation what needs to be determined is how much is down to those natural factors and how much is down to mankind's actions. And for the latter, what can be done to mitigate or reverse that impact.

To my mind, the biggest manmade cause is population increase. In 1950 the estimated global population was around 2½ billion and it's now around 8 billion. The population trebling in size in 70 years puts a huge strain on the resources available to sustain them: land for housing, land for food, water supplies, energy, jobs, health care.

Until the global birthrate reduces to zero (or even negative) we don't really have a chance of reducing the human factors of climate change.

Actually the cause is quite simple (and the science behind it has been known since the 1800s). It's down to human activity having increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere by 50% in just 150 years (increases in other cases have also contributed).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2023 ==

Absolutely. Climate change itself is entirely natural, part of the lifecycle of a planet. Even if humanity were not around at the moment, the planet would still be heating up.

No, it would be cooling - as it had been until fairly recently. Not enough for a full blown ice age, but enough to see a gradual increase in polar ice

It's known as the Neoglacial

Neoglaciation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The neoglaciation ("renewed glaciation") describes the documented cooling trend in the Earth's climate during the Holocene, following the retreat of the Wisconsin glaciation, the most recent glacial period. Neoglaciation has followed the hypsithermal or Holocene Climatic Optimum, the warmest point in the Earth's climate during the current interglacial stage, excluding the global warming-induced temperature increase starting in the 20th century. The neoglaciation has no well-marked universal beginning: local conditions and ecological inertia affected the onset of detectably cooler (and wetter) conditions.

Driven inexorably by the Milankovitch cycle, cooler summers in higher latitudes of North America, which would cease to completely melt the annual snowfall, were masked at first by the presence of the slowly disappearing continental ice sheets, which persisted long after the astronomically calculated moment of maximum summer warmth: "the neoglaciation can be said to have begun when the cooling caught up with the warming", remarked E. C. Pielou.[1] With the close of the "Little Ice Age" (mid-14th to late 19th centuries), neoglaciation appears to have been reversed in the late 20th century, evidently caused by anthropogenic global warming. Neoglaciation had been marked by a retreat from the warm conditions of the Climatic Optimum and the advance or reformation of glaciers that had not existed since the last ice age. In the mountains of western North America, montane glaciers that had completely melted reformed shortly before 5000 BP.[2] The most severe part of the best documented neoglacial period, especially in Europe and the North Atlantic, is termed the "Little Ice Age".

 

[GusB]

Why would I want for example a heat pump that doesn't work and leaves me having to buy and use expensive electric fires or oil-filled radiators or calor gas heaters just to smooth the ego and boost the profits of someone that says we have a climate emergency?

Have you ever had a heat pump? If not, how do you know they don't actually work? Seems like you're just jumping on a bandwagon. They do work.

Those pushing net zero seem to want us to accelerate that process *further* (!), by forcing us to give up eating meat, heating our homes properly, driving a car or going on foreign holidays.

It's not about being forced to give up meat or properly heat our homes, etc. If a lot of people make small adjustments it can still have a reasonable effect. I was (mostly) vegetarian for a while when in my 20s, but I didn't completely give up meat; I shared a house with two veggies and a vegan, and I found it easy to make small adjustments to meals that I'd usually make with meat. I'd still indulge in the odd bacon buttie on the way to work, or a sausage roll at lunchtime, but I didn't find the reduction in meat-eating too onerous. If anything, I felt far healthier than I'd ever done.

More recently I had been eating less because I was on benefits and meat was a luxury I couldn't really afford. While I'm no longer in that situation, the way prices have gone up lately I hesitate before I buy it.

As far as heating homes is concerned, the best way to reduce the amount of energy being used is to ensure that every home is insulated to the maximum extent possible; it's also one of the easiest and cost-effective methods and people will feel it in their pockets when their bills are reduced.

Nobody is suggesting that we should give up driving either, but I do think that people should consider whether their journey needs to be made by car. If you're just nipping to a shop that's a five minute walk away, it's better for you, better for the environment and better for your car if you actually walk.

Those who promote greener behaviour are often accused of scaremongering but it comes from both sides; suggesting that people will have to give up this that and the other is just that - scaremongering!

 

[Iskra]

Why am I apathetic?

- I think it's become a bit like a religion that demonises non-believers and tries to indoctrinate anyone who will listen, possibly with an agenda behind it.
- There have always been temperature fluctuations and these are natural.
- I believe that necessity is the mother of invention, and that whatever happens in terms of climate, humanity will adapt to deal with it.
- I think that as Britain led the world in industrialising to move beyond an agrarian economy, it is incredibly hypocritical to lecture developing countries on this topic or prevent them from industrialising to attain higher standards of living.

 

[MikeWM]

It's not about being forced to give up meat or properly heat our homes, etc.

The problem is, as the cycle of fear about the world being 'on fire' gets ever more pervasive and ever-shriller, that appears to be exactly what it is about.

If a lot of people make small adjustments it can still have a reasonable effect.

I agree with this, of course. I think part of the problem here is we're being given too much to do in too sort a time. In a work environment, if you give people challenging goals then they'll try to meet them. But if you give people impossible goals, they just won't bother, and you'll get even less out of them than if you gave them easily-achievable goals.

But on meat, here's the well-known George Monbiot for example, almost six years ago calling on us to give up eating meat and eat processed, hundreds-of-dodgy-chemical-ingredients 'artificial' meat instead

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...tock-farming-artificial-meat-industry-animals

Meat is consuming the planet.

He's reiterated the point since, numerous times, and now isn't telling *us* to change willingly, he's just calling for things to be banned:

https://thatsfarming.com/farming-news/george-monbiot-farming/

“we should shut down livestock farming”

As far as heating homes is concerned, the best way to reduce the amount of energy being used is to ensure that every home is insulated to the maximum extent possible; it's also one of the easiest and cost-effective methods and people will feel it in their pockets when their bills are reduced.

To some extent I agree, although I would argue that we need to be careful with the rush to insulate everything in sight. Some of the current schemes (eg. external insulation for houses without cavity walls) strike me as being likely candidates down the road for issues similar to the cavity wall foam issues that are fairly widespread.

But we're going ahead and banning gas boilers before the alternatives are ready. Heat pumps are suitable for some properties but not so for others. We need the replacement technologies in place and fully working *before* we force people to switch. Especially when we're talking about the sums of money involved, people can't afford to get it wrong (or indeed afford it in the first place).

Nobody is suggesting that we should give up driving either,

The problem there is that the rush to ban petrol cars - similar to the rush to ban gas boliers - makes it appear exactly that. We're not remotely in a state where we can replace all the petrol cars with electric at this point. Battery technology isn't good enough, we don't have enough minerals (despite the amount of forced child labour in African countries that are mining them), and the grid isn't up to charging them in such numbers. Those problems may end up being solved, and *then* we can move to electric cars, but at the moment there is suspicion - rather borne out by the facts so far - that the plan is that the rich replace their petrol and diesel cars with electric ones, and everyone else will have to give up their car entirely.

Equally with '15 minute cities' - a great idea in theory, but are they putting in the infrastructure to allow taking advantage of local things, given it is a reversal of 60+ years of town/city planning? No, they're just putting in bollards and cameras and permits. All stick, no carrot.

Those who promote greener behaviour are often accused of scaremongering but it comes from both sides; suggesting that people will have to give up this that and the other is just that - scaremongering!

There is scaremongering for sure, but here is where I see the similarities to covid come in. There are a lot of people who want to push through the changes in society that they want to see, for whatever reason. Every time we get a crisis, they see their chance to push their 'solution', while at the same time talking up the crisis so we run towards those solutions.

None of which means we shouldn't improve our 'stewardship'. Personally, I have a fairly well-insulated house that I keep far colder than most people would be comfortable with. I don't own a car, never have. I don't go on planes very often, I holiday in the UK. I don't have children or pets. I wish that farming was more humane and more organic, and try to taylor my meat purchases accordingly. I think I'm already doing quite a bit. But I don't want the cold hand of the state forcing me to give up things I enjoy or need, and/or replacing them with things that are worse.