BBC Wonders Why More People Aren’t Doing More On Climate Crisis (scam)

Us Skeptics wonder that, too. Why don’t those card carrying members of the Cult of Climastrology do more in their own lives to comport with their Beliefs? Why do so few give up their fossil fueled vehicles, move into tiny homes/apartments, give up meat, send lots of their money to the official tax collecting agency of each country?

Why are people not doing more about climate change?

I drive a diesel car, eat meat and just a few months ago had a gas boiler installed in my house, that’s quite an admission for an environment correspondent who reports on climate change.

Climahypocrite. Don’t forget, the grand high poobahs are coming after diesel now, after saying it was better than regular gas.

The problem is that greener options are financially out of reach for me and – it seems – most Scots.

That is something I have been investigating for BBC Scotland’s Disclosure.

We commissioned a survey of 1,009 Scots, conducted by Savanta ComRes, which suggests price is putting many people off making greener lifestyle choices.

Price? Ya think? This is the next thing in the article

Price, eh? We all know that EVs are expensive. I can get a Touring Accord hybrid or CRV hybrid, the top end, for less than the least expensive Tesla with a fast charger installed. Which will give me more range, and takes all of 5 minutes to fill up and be on my way, since range is the second concern. Much more convenient, which is the 3rd concern.

Price was a factor too when it came to switching from gas and oil home heating to greener alternatives such as heat pumps. In that question, 64% of those who had considered the switch said the cost had put them off.

Confused by options was #2, with concerns over heating performance just barely #3. Four is inconvenient. Replacing your gas furnace, stove, or hot water heater (only my heat is gas, which is weird the way they built these townhomes) is not cheap.

Both these changes and many others will be necessary over the next 25 years if Scotland is to meet its targets for reducing emissions.

But Dr Sarah Ivory from the University of Edinburgh, who has studied climate-related behaviour change, believes it will difficult to bring them about.

She says: “We’re all a little bit sick of hearing about how bad it is, hearing that something needs to happen and really not knowing how to act.

“We have people say, ‘why should we change now?’. I think the answer to that is, if we don’t change now, we really are on a pathway to some catastrophic changes in our climate.”

Yet, the big wigs in the cult aren’t doing this themselves. Why should we? Are they giving up meat, which is demonized later in the piece? Nope.

But our poll suggests only 32% of people have been influenced by the protests to make lifestyle changes for the benefit of the planet.

Switching out your lightbulbs really doesn’t count.

And 29% believe the actions of individuals have only a minor impact, or no impact at all, on tackling the issue.

If so many believe individual actions are important, why are the Warmists not doing it in their own lives? Oh, right, because they want to force Other People to do so.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “BBC Wonders Why More People Aren’t Doing More On Climate Crisis (scam)”

  1. Hairy says:

    Well teach that is gir the initial purchase
    But
    Over the next 5 years owning and operating a Tesla mod 3 will cost you about 30000$
    Owning an Accord will cost you about $40000
    And there will be greater savings over the next 5 years
    Thectedla will also be much faster quieter safer
    Teach have you ever driven a Tesla

    • Dana says:

      The Hirsute One wrote:

      Well teach that is gir the initial purchase
      But
      Over the next 5 years owning and operating a Tesla mod 3 will cost you about 30000$
      Owning an Accord will cost you about $40000

      Except, of course, when you pay more initially for the Tesla, most people are financing that extra money, so you are buying not just the car, but paying the interest on the loan. Perhaps the very green Mr Dowd and Cousin It have the cash available to simply but a Tesla outright, but most new car buyers do not.

      When you start to include that interest, what does that $30,000 vs $40,000 become?

      This is the problem for so many of the warmunists: they have no f(ornicating) idea how the working class really live. Oh, they say that they do, and the left tell us that they are the ones who support the little guy, but they exhibit no actual understanding of poverty, or of people who may not be poor but still live paycheck-to-paycheck. Remember, around 40% of households would have significant problems with a $400 unexpected expense, and that story was from 2019, before the government unnecessarily trashed the economy due to COVID-19.

      The money we spent, $5,896, to replace our HVAC system? We’re fortunate; we had the cash in savings. By having the money, on hand, we were able to take the cash out of the bank, and were thus able to get the $400 discount for paying cash.

      But this is eastern Kentucky, and a whole lot of people around here wouldn’t have had that money available. (Actually, a whole lot of people lost more than their HVAC systems; some people had the flood waters get into their homes.) Yet the Hirsute One seems to think that it’s just nothing to go out and buy a Tesla with cash.

      There is a truth about the American economy, a truth that the left do not understand, and really, they can’t handle the truth. It’s so easy for people with no worries about money to tell others how they should live and how they should spend their money, when money worries are foreign to them.

  2. Dana says:

    Mr Keane wrote:

    Price was a factor too when it came to switching from gas and oil home heating to greener alternatives such as heat pumps. In that question, 64% of those who had considered the switch said the cost had put them off.

    Well, that’s Scotland.

    When my heat pump HVAC system was trashed in the floods, the least expensive alternative was to replace the unit with another, because the ducting system was already in place, and there was no chimney required. It was in the crawl space, which meant installing a propane system would have been more expensive.

    And, of course, the heat pump HVAC system is also my air conditioning, so replacing it with a propane unit would have meant no AC.

    $5,896, complete, with the $400 discount for cash. And it only took half a day.

    The heat pump system comes with an ’emergency heat’ function, for when it’s too cold out for the heat pump by itself to really warm up the house. I guess that I’m ‘greener’ than the green writer.

    Of course, there are buts involved. Yes, we use an electric system for our primary heat, but our sparktricity is provided by a coal-burning power plant. And we replaced our electric water heater and range with propane, along with adding a propane fireplace. Why? because out in the country, and at the end of the electric company’s service area, when the power goes out here, it can go out for days at a time. We can lose electricity, and still be warm, take hot showers and cook.

    When we lived in Pennsylvania, our decisions would have been different. Our house came with a heating oil fired steam boiler and radiators for heat. If the boiler had failed, we would have replaced it with another boiler, because a heat pump would have required the addition of heating ducts, an expensive add-on, especially in a house built in 1890. Though there wasn’t gas service in the house, it was available at the street, and the gas company had to bring it to the house, for free, if it was to be used for main heating, so we could have opted for a gas-fired boiler rather than heating oil. The air conditioning part of a heat pump system wouldn’t have been important to us, because AC really wasn’t needed there often.

    We did add a wood stove, because we already had the chimney for it, and it improved things; that was only around $700.

    We don’t take our decisions based on how ‘green’ things are; we take them based on what’s best for us, both immediately and going forward. Some of those decisions would fall in line with what the warmunists want, and some do not.

    If you give people choices, they tend, overall, to take sensible ones. People will choose heat pump HVAC systems when practical, and will not when they are not.

    But choice is something the warmunists do not want people to have. They don’t really want people to choose between gasoline/diesel powered and plug in electric vehicles, even though more people are choosing plug-in electrics. As long as free choice is, why some people might take the wrong choices, and the left just can’t allow that!

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    “If we believe in that so-called user pays principle, the idea that part of how we pay for roads is you pay based on how much you drive, the gas tax used to be the obvious way to do it, it’s not anymore. So a so-called vehicle miles traveled tax, or mileage tax, whatever you want to call it, could be the way to do it,” …
    — Trans Sec Pete Bootygig

    Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  4. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host wrote:

    But our poll suggests only 32% of people have been influenced by the protests to make lifestyle changes for the benefit of the planet.

    Switching out your lightbulbs really doesn’t count.

    That’s one of the things that the warmunists don’t get. People do little things, perhaps for reasons other than the warmunists’ ‘the sky is falling’ screams.

    Yes, we bought LED light bulbs, not because they are ‘green,’ but because they take less electricity and, more importantly, they do not get as hot; that reduces the possibility that they could start a fire in an old house.

    But we also remembered the extravagant claims for the CFL bulbs, how they were going to be so much cheaper because they’d last for seven years or something like that. It turns out that they didn’t last any longer than incandescent bulbs, and people remembered that. They’d already been lied to by the warmunists about the CFLs; why trust them again about the LEDs.

    And, in our experience, the LEDs do last longer than the incandescents or the CFLs, but not as long as we were told. One of the two I installed in the living room overhead has lasted since 2017; the other failed. Of the six canister lights I installed in the kitchen in 2018, three have had to be replaced. They are better than the incandescents, but are not as good as advertised. If the warmunists would do something radical like tell the truth, their messages might be better received.

  5. […] market demand for rich people. Not so much for the middle class and […]

Bad Behavior has blocked 10354 access attempts in the last 7 days.