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

[jon0844]

Nice as in stopping people getting to work, going for hospital appointments, going to see family or friends, going shopping etc etc?

You can't surely compare that to blowing things up.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Your choice of words shows the obvious: You have no science-based argument that would say anything about climate change. Instead, a superficial and sweeping insult towards a group. The real problem remains conveniently unmentioned.

I'm not arguing about the science, and nor are such arguments what the title of this thread is about.
The thread asks why people are apathetic, and a big part of that is the conduct of climate activists. These people are the most visible element of eco-campaigning, and their inability or unwillingness to consider either the lives/livelihoods of ordinary people or the "optics" of their activism is not getting people "on board" with their message.

Well compared to blowing up fuel refineries or petrol stations, they're extremely nice.

Who's blowing up fuel refineries and petrol stations?

 

[Bantamzen]

You can't surely compare that to blowing things up.

You're the one making comparisons, all I did was point out that getting in the way of ordinary people's lives isn't nice.

 

[bahnause]

It makes no sense to protect one's own livelihood in the short term, only to destroy the livelihood of many or all in the long term.

 

[Bantamzen]

It makes no sense to protect one's own livelihood in the short term, only to destroy the livelihood of many or all in the long term.

Equally it makes no sense to destroy our livelihood now in the hope that it might change things in the future.

 

[jon0844]

If we got a Government that decided to invest heavily in solar, wind and tidal energy solutions - even more nuclear - so we could stop using almost all coal (very rarely used already) and gas, can you imagine it being easy to get any legislation passed when the oil companies would lobby hard to delay or stop such actions?

Sure, they'd say we need to do it and that they're investing themselves in solutions, but it would be mostly delaying tactics and a way of using the green energy generation to offset the CO2 emissions of its fossil fuel side.

And now the Government, a PM whose wife allegedly stands to profit greatly from new licenses being issued, is becoming the motorists' friend so once again it becomes a major political issue - which, frankly, it always will be.

 

[bahnause]

Of course, I feel for all the people whose livelihoods have been destroyed by using less climate-damaging options. After all, we all know that using low-emission energy is equivalent to living in a cave. At the same time, access to the car park is only possible with an SUV due to the pavement between the road and the car park; small cars would disintegrate into their components when driving over the threshold.

An electric vehicle is of course not an option either, as their range is only 200m or alternatively they self-ignite at least every 500 miles. Sometimes there is even magic involved, as on the "Fremantle Highway", where they started a fire without being damaged themselves.

But there are upsides to this.
Fortunately, the taxpayer does not have to pay for the direct and indirect subsidies to the oil industry, because that is done by the government. A lot of the money the oil companies saved goes back to the government, or at least to some members of it.

Even more happy news for a large part of the common taxpayers: Apparently, about 90% of all taxpayers do not have to pay taxes anymore, because their share per capita is only 0.0000003% of the total revenue and therefore negligible (the same logic seems to apply to per capita emissions).

 

[AM9]

Of course, I feel for all the people whose livelihoods have been destroyed by using less climate-damaging options. After all, we all know that using low-emission energy is equivalent to living in a cave. At the same time, access to the car park is only possible with an SUV due to the pavement between the road and the car park; small cars would disintegrate into their components when driving over the threshold.

An electric vehicle is of course not an option either, as their range is only 200m or alternatively they self-ignite at least every 500 miles. Sometimes there is even magic involved, as on the "Fremantle Highway", where they started a fire without being damaged themselves.

But there are upsides to this.
Fortunately, the taxpayer does not have to pay for the direct and indirect subsidies to the oil industry, because that is done by the government. A lot of the money the oil companies saved goes back to the government, or at least to some members of it.

Even more happy news for a large part of the common taxpayers: Apparently, about 90% of all taxpayers do not have to pay taxes anymore, because their share per capita is only 0.0000003% of the total revenue and therefore negligible (the same logic seems to apply to per capita emissions).

Whilst I appreciate some of the irony in your posts, (at least I assume that it is irony), this thread is getting beyond simple satire and cynical resignation, so it would be helpful if the customary hints that indicators of deliberate false facts could be added to avoid any misunderstanding of claims.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I can't even get my work colleagues to turn their computer monitors off for the days on end they don't use them due to WFH so frankly don't know how anything else will change!

One can get software that does that automatically at a predetermined time.

 

[GS250]

Another question is if there is a "climate emergency" why do rail fares keep going up?

Agreed. And why are companies allowed to store electric locos whilst using diesel locos instead under wires?

Climate emergency.

And another thing...companies insisting staff return to the office as opposed to working remotely.

Climate emergency though isn't there?

 

[uglymonkey]

Whilst I fully accept climate change, I object to the fact that so many people seem to be treating it as a cash cow and are making tons of money out of it.

 

[bahnause]

Agreed. And why are companies allowed to store electric locos whilst using diesel locos instead under wires?

Because the people elect people to run the country, who then represent the interests of the oil lobby.

Tories received £1.3m from fossil fuel interests and climate sceptics since 2019
Oil and gas donors gave over £400k to Tories before North Sea decision
£3.5m of Tory donations linked to pollution and climate denial, says report
How Rishi Sunak's Family Profited from Ties to Oil Giant Shell

Whilst I fully accept climate change, I object to the fact that so many people seem to be treating it as a cash cow and are making tons of money out of it.

Why should it not be okay to earn money with climate protection, while nobody seems to mind earning money with polluting the climate?

 

[341o2]

It makes no sense to protect one's own livelihood in the short term, only to destroy the livelihood of many or all in the long term.

OK, so if I commit suicide, will that save the planet?

 

[MotCO]

It makes no sense to protect one's own livelihood in the short term, only to destroy the livelihood of many or all in the long term.

It makes even less sense to destroy your livelihood when the UK contributes only around 1% of global CO2 emissions (probably less), and parts of the world are doing nothing to reduce their emissions, but are actually increasing their emissions and expanding their industries to protect their subjects' livelihoods.

Whether or not you agree that there is a climate emergency, the impact that the UK can make is negligible (from a low base), and other countries, if they accept there is a climate emergency, should do their part to help. (The cynic in me suggests that the Chinese are creating this 'climate emergency', are funding protests groups around the world to force their governments to take action, in turn impacting negatively on their industries and wealth, so that China can fill the void and become a powerful superpower. If not, why don't they take any action?)

 

[The Ham]

Never mind rail fares, if there's a "climate emergency" then why are we paying carbon based prices for increasingly non-carbon energy production. Wasn't greener energy supposed to be cheaper? Or why are EVs considerably more expensive than their petrol equivalents? Or why aren't solar panels and heat pumps cheap enough for everyone?

Its funny how everything that could make a drastic difference is getting more expensive, whilst we the little people are told that everything we do that brings a little comfort or happiness is bringing about the end of the world. Or at least this is how it feels to a lot of people, and it is exactly why people are growing apathetic or even opposed to climate change measures. If the people gluing themselves to things, throwing yellow chemicals about or sitting on trains or in front of buses had even a slither of common sense they would understand this and direct their protests and actions in this direction.

The best bit is that the phrase "climate emergency" isn't even a scientific one, it was first used in anger by a local council in Australia back in 2016. It bet they are getting a buzz out of being the ones to declare a "climate emergency" that has millions of people panicking

What things which could reduce our emissions are getting more expensive than the options which aren't. You mention solar, that's been getting cheaper and cheaper (even before showing for inflation) for assume time now.

EV's have high up front costs compared to ICE vehicles, however they can go for 300,000 miles with limited need to make significant maintenance payments. Even if there's ICE's at that sort if level on their original engine some of the components (such as cam belts) are likely to have been replaced at noticeable cost.

It makes no sense to protect one's own livelihood in the short term, only to destroy the livelihood of many or all in the long term.

Equally it makes no sense to destroy our livelihood now in the hope that it might change things in the future.

These two need to be considered in partnership. Whilst there's going to be changes in employment as time goes by, that happens anyway (in the UK, almost no one is involved in farming, whilst 100 years ago a significant number were and 100 years before that even more were, the same had happened in making things). Coal mining was a big employer, however even without pits closing the number of people doing that would have fallen significantly. Oil and gas could well go a similar way.

As such, even without global warming, it's not likely that there would be as much need for staff in those industries. Not least as the number of viable sites reduce as we extract the oil and gas - as it's a finite resource and whilst we keep finding more (globally) that doesn't mean that the North Sea has lots more still to be found.

However, I still come back to my question about being wrong. It's it better to be wrong about climate change being a thing and we end up with less air pollution, a healthier population, etc. or be wrong about Coimbatore change not being a thing and the issues that could cause?

Again, small steps 50 years ago could have likely have ment that no one was required to give up a job until retirement. The fact that wasn't the case, had actually made it worse for those who are in industries which are going to be noisy impacted by the change.

OK, so if I commit suicide, will that save the planet?

Whilst a smaller population would reduce the total emissions, one person taking their own life isn't going to make a noticeable difference.

That same person working with others to bring about change could result in a larger impact. For example, highlighting the small change by 300 households all reducing by an average of 2 miles a week their driving being the same impact as 1 car being taken off the roads. Scale that up to 20 million households and that's about the same as 70,000 fewer cars in emissions terms. Whilst that's tiny compared to the 41 million cars, it's likely to be:
a) a step in the right direction
b) lead to less congestion, which benefits emissions through less wasted fuel
c) lead to some going further than the 2 miles per week, potentially reducing by one their household's ownership rates (be that to 2, 1, or even none)
d) potentially lead to roads being easier/safer to walk/cycle so it becomes easier for more to get in board with reducing the amount that they drive

It makes even less sense to destroy your livelihood when the UK contributes only around 1% of global CO2 emissions (probably less), and parts of the world are doing nothing to reduce their emissions, but are actually increasing their emissions and expanding their industries to protect their subjects' livelihoods.

Whether or not you agree that there is a climate emergency, the impact that the UK can make is negligible (from a low base), and other countries, if they accept there is a climate emergency, should do their part to help. (The cynic in me suggests that the Chinese are creating this 'climate emergency', are funding protests groups around the world to force their governments to take action, in turn impacting negatively on their industries and wealth, so that China can fill the void and become a powerful superpower. If not, why don't they take any action?)

There's very few countries which would be contributing 1% of emissions (given that there's nearly 200, so on average they'd only ever get to about 0.5% each), therefore saying we only do 1% could be argued that we're double what we should be (assuming we don't care about population size - which clearly we don't if we are happy that our national emissions are smaller than China).

This is why comparing their emissions at a national level isn't always helpful. Yes China should be doing more to reduce their emissions, however on a per person basis they're not that far adrift from us and there's many who think that they are going to reach peak emissions soon. If they do (and there's no certainty that they will, but if they do), what is then the argument for not making changes?

Do we then start saying that the USA is the one who needs to make changes as their per person emissions are about double ours?

The problem with that argument is that there's a lot of countries with personal emission levels smaller than ours (and quite a few of them which are half or lower than ours) so to them we become the ones who need to make change before they do.

If the question was about something different, how does it play out? If a gang was in court for murdering 6 people in the last year, could the claim that they shouldn't go to jail because this other gang (which just happens to be much bigger) has murdered 30 people, could that other gang claim they shouldn't go jail as another gang somewhere in size between the two had murdered 23 people and of they were the same size as the second gang that would have been a lot more people and anyway we've only really just started murdering people, if you look at the number from the first gang they've not killed quite as many as us, but their gang is a tiny fraction of our gang and they've produced 1/3 of the total body count that we have.

Clearly the judge would say, murder is murder, you all go to jail. It didn't matter how much curry you drop into a white tablecloth the tablecloth is no longer clean.

Clearly carbon emissions aren't as clear cut as murder, however it's very easy to try and justify oneself by comparing to others - the question should be are we doing the right thing?

If emitting carbon in the right thing, then there should be no limits. Does anyone agree that everyone worldwide could emit as much CO2 as we like and there would never ever be any consequence?

If it's not, then there's a limit, and the question is what is that limit?

Then the follow up question is; in the UK, are we above that limit if everyone worldwide were to emit the same personal value?

If we are above that personal limit then we, and every other country above that limit, needs to reduce our emissions. For those where they are increasing they have to stop that before they can reverse, but that doesn't mean that those who are too high don't need to reduce too.

If you want to dock a large ship which is traveling quickly (at least quickly for a large ship) against the tide you need to slow the engine down (there's not necessarily the need to go into reverse, as the tide will do some of the work to slow it down) otherwise you're going to miss the dock. If the slowing of the engine had happened earlier the reduction would have been less (as the momentum of the ship would have been less and the engine power would have been less to begin with).

Everyone on that boat has to work together to get the engine to slow, it's no good saying that this person or that person is the reason it's going too fast to dock.

 

[bahnause]

It makes even less sense to destroy your livelihood when the UK contributes only around 1% of global CO2 emissions (probably less), and parts of the world are doing nothing to reduce their emissions, but are actually increasing their emissions and expanding their industries to protect their subjects' livelihoods.

Whether or not you agree that there is a climate emergency, the impact that the UK can make is negligible (from a low base), and other countries, if they accept there is a climate emergency, should do their part to help. (The cynic in me suggests that the Chinese are creating this 'climate emergency', are funding protests groups around the world to force their governments to take action, in turn impacting negatively on their industries and wealth, so that China can fill the void and become a powerful superpower. If not, why don't they take any action?)

The old fairy tale of "it's only 1%, so it doesn't matter". Do you provide more than 1% to the tax revenue of the country? If not, according to your logic you don't have to pay tax anymore. And other parts of the world are working on the issue, that includes china. They seem to achieve their 2030 goal for renewables in 2025. They might even meet their goal for carbon neutrality earlier then planned. Considering a lot of the CO2 emissions of china are for exports, they don't look that bad anymore.

Your whole conspiracy theory falls apart at first contact with reality.

And the idea of wheter you can agree or disagree that there is a climate crisis is frankly ridiculous.

 

[matacaster]

It’s obvious that we need to take drastic action to prevent a 2 degree temperature rise within the next few decades, but it’s also clear that there are some people who are completely apathetic to the idea that we need to do something about it. From my observation, it seems that the majority of reasons for not taking action are down to economics. After all, without the industrialisation that increased our GDP, there wouldn’t have been any additional greenhouse gases in the first place.

I have a few theories as to why some British citizens might not want to take action, although it’s highly unlikely that all of these will apply to most people. Please note however that this should not be seen as a list of the benefits of climate change, and that glamorisation of something which causes serious harm to the planet should be discouraged.

• They do not want to give up possessions (car, boiler etc) that they have worked hard for
• They believe the ultimate aim of the green lobby will destroy capitalism and lead to everybody living in caves
• Measures to tackle climate change bear an additional cost to the consumer
• A warmer planet will boost the UK tourism economy with more people opting to holiday there
• Lower import costs, since warmer climate crops such as bananas and cocoa can be grown in more regions
• More people die from cold-related deaths than heat-related deaths, so a warmer planet would reduce pressures on the NHS
• They don’t care about people living in poorer countries who are likely to suffer the most from climate change
• They see climate refugees as a way of boosting the economy
• They think it’s solely the responsibility of organisations (oil giants, motor manufacturers etc) who have contributed to it in the first place, so feel no need to take action
• Increased profits from oil companies can be used to fund more space research, with the end goal being to find another Earth-like planet in the event that our own becomes uninhabitable

Can you think of any other reasons?

The weather in Yorkshire was good in June, but July and August have been cold and wet. We could do with a few more degrees here to make summer pleasant!

Equally it makes no sense to destroy our livelihood now in the hope that it might change things in the future.

It should be remembered that circa 1900 there were predictions that London roads would be buried under tons of horse muck, but the car came along and saved us.

I find it quite astonishing that world population growth is not being curved. It would be hugely unpopular, but that's the real problem. The medical industry keeping people alive who don't want to continue is something of a Ponzi scheme.

 

[AM9]

The weather in Yorkshire was good in June, but July and August have been cold and wet. We could do with a few more degrees here to make summer pleasant!

What has the weather got to do with climate change?

The weather in Yorkshire was good in June, but July and August have been cold and wet. We could do with a few more degrees here to make summer pleasant!


It should be remembered that circa 1900 there were predictions that London roads would be buried under tons of horse muck, but the car came along and saved us.

I find it quite astonishing that world population growth is not being curved. It would be hugely unpopular, but that's the real problem. The medical industry keeping people alive who don't want to continue is something of a Ponzi scheme.

If that's what you believe is needed to help reduce the impact of climate change then you will of course accept that the richest countries must redice their birth rate the most and before the poorer countries.

 

[JamesT]

The old fairy tale of "it's only 1%, so it doesn't matter". Do you provide more than 1% to the tax revenue of the country? If not, according to your logic you don't have to pay tax anymore. And other parts of the world are working on the issue, that includes china. They seem to achieve their 2030 goal for renewables in 2025. They might even meet their goal for carbon neutrality earlier then planned. Considering a lot of the CO2 emissions of china are for exports, they don't look that bad anymore.

Your whole conspiracy theory falls apart at first contact with reality.

And the idea of wheter you can agree or disagree that there is a climate crisis is frankly ridiculous.

China are working on the issue? Really? They're still building new coal power stations every week.
Our emissions are frankly irrelevant compared to theirs, when the increase in emissions last year by China was larger than our emissions. As noted earlier, only 20% of the Chinese economy is based around exports, so most of those emissions are concerned with their domestic economy.

 

[bahnause]

Many of these new coal power stations are located on new solar and wind parks, often to provide back up power and to ensure continuity of energy supply. While over half a trillion dollars was spent worldwide on wind and solar last year, China accounted for 55% of that.

Comparing emissions of a country with a population of 1.425.849.288 to one with a population of 67,026,292 seems a bit desperate to me. Even more so if you take the history of CO2 emissions sice the 1970s into account.

 

[Sorcerer]

Frankly I see no reason for anyone to be building new coal power plants in this day and age knowing full well what the effects of burning fossil fuels are and with the alternatives available. I would take a guess that this is largely because of the CCP's financial and business interest since the state owns coal mining businesses such as the China National Coal Group.

 

[AlterEgo]

That's the problem with these trustafarians throwing paint at artwork and gluing themselves to roads... they're far too nice.

Well they are. The whole thing stops when one of them gets punched through a wall by someone actually not nice. They’re very nice and gentle people, they aren’t hardcore activists who are up for withstanding a bit of brutality.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Well they are. The whole thing stops when one of them gets punched through a wall by someone actually not nice. They’re very nice and gentle people, they aren’t hardcore activists who are up for withstanding a bit of brutality.

Tell that to those who've suffered lifelong complications from medical issues due to ambulances being blocked.

I'm all on board with campaigning for society to move to less environmentally damaging methods of running itself, but if a sick relative of mine was being held up by these yellow-shirted harpies I'd do everything in my power to shift them out of the way. The fear that I might cause some minor injury to the protestors in the process would be a very long way down my list of concerns.

 

[AM9]

I'm all on board with campaigning for society to move to less environmentally damaging methods of running itself, but if a sick relative of mine was being held up by these yellow-shirted harpies I'd do everything in my power to shift them out of the way. The fear that I might cause some minor injury to the protestors in the process would be a very long way down my list of concerns.

So to paraphrase your feelings, you are quite happy for others to do thek dirty work fighting an intransigent administration to ensure a better future for you and others, as long as it doesn't impact your lifestyle. That extends to sacrificing their safety, even causing 'minor injury', in the pursuit of doing whatever you want to without being inconvenienced in any way which trumps all else.
Well that isn't the way that attitudes and ultimately the law is changed. I'm sure that there were self-righteous outbursts when the suffragettes protested for the basic right to vote around the early years of the 20th century, or whether the demonstration against racism and the police's contribution to it was blocking the streets of Southall in 1979. Who would now stand up and say yhat the inconvenience caused to others wasn't justified? Well it's time the protesters are not demonstrating for a change that just benefits a section of society, but the whole of the country (and ultimately the world) from an existential threat.

 

[judethegreat]

Not an Extinction Rebellion person myself, but i do know their protests ALWAYS move aside to let 'blue lights' through, and as there will be crossover personnel-wise with Just Stop Oil (again i have no links with), i assume they have the same policy.

 

[The Ham]

Not an Extinction Rebellion person myself, but i do know their protests ALWAYS move aside to let 'blue lights' through, and as there will be crossover personnel-wise with Just Stop Oil (again i have no links with), i assume they have the same policy.

Also, arguably far more "blue light delay" is down to excess traffic, maybe those most concerned about this do as much as they can to reduce their car use?

(I suspect the venn diagram of those who say about the delays and those who reduce their car use is hardly touching)

 

[jon0844]

Probably the same as the people who say we should help homeless veterans before immigrants, then wouldn't give a penny for either.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

So to paraphrase your feelings, you are quite happy for others to do thek dirty work fighting an intransigent administration to ensure a better future for you and others, as long as it doesn't impact your lifestyle. That extends to sacrificing their safety, even causing 'minor injury', in the pursuit of doing whatever you want to without being inconvenienced in any way which trumps all else.
Well that isn't the way that attitudes and ultimately the law is changed. I'm sure that there were self-righteous outbursts when the suffragettes protested for the basic right to vote around the early years of the 20th century, or whether the demonstration against racism and the police's contribution to it was blocking the streets of Southall in 1979. Who would now stand up and say yhat the inconvenience caused to others wasn't justified? Well it's time the protesters are not demonstrating for a change that just benefits a section of society, but the whole of the country (and ultimately the world) from an existential threat.

Not at all, that's a very disingenuous and uncharitable interpretation. It's not about my "lifestyle", it's about people's immediate wellbeing. If I was driving a member of my family to hospital and one of these selfish (and many of them ARE selfish in my opinion, they're more interested in being seen than being heard) protestors was blocking my way through, then I would physically drag them out of the way for the sake of my loved one, consequences be damned.

If these people want to get the majority of the public on board, they need to rethink their tactics. "Don't p*** off the general public" is Campaigning 101.

 

[AM9]

Not at all, that's a very disingenuous and uncharitable interpretation. It's not about my "lifestyle", it's about people's immediate wellbeing. If I was driving a member of my family to hospital and one of these selfish (and many of them ARE selfish in my opinion, they're more interested in being seen than being heard) protestors was blocking my way through, then I would physically drag them out of the way for the sake of my loved one, consequences be damned.

If these people want to get the majority of the public on board, they need to rethink their tactics. "Don't p*** off the general public" is Campaigning 101.

Then why won't anybody engage with them? There's no logic to the argument that says: "I am concerned about human activity increasing CO2 levels and its impact on climate, but I won't discuss it with anybody who inconveniences me with their protests". As the Government has found, they can't kill the messenger with legislation without putting so many restrictions on everybody's lives that there will be a backlash from the general public. Engagement with the organisation (not the headbangers) will rapidly undermine the demonstrations. The Government missed the trick with the Insulate Britain group two years ago. Had there been a sensible dialogue about improving insulation, there was an estimated cost of £17bn to meet their needs, - not that much compared withy what followed. We've seen in the last year how unstable energy prices are, and this Government has spent over £12bn supporting the status quo on the poorly insulated UK housing stock. Of course not much would have been saved by whatever inulation could have been done by the time the price rose, but who knows when the next energy crisis will be?

 

[GS250]

I believe that Canning Town protest was particularly ill judged and more thank likely turned the tide of opinion against the protesters.

It was an absolute abomination of a protest really. The time of day that correlated with the paid by the hour blue collar audience and even worse, the fact it was staged at a venue that almost certainly promotes low carbon travel.

By all means protest against the bourgeoisie and their Chelsea tractors....but then again, that's the perception of the demographic that most ER protesters come from....