Remember, this is all about science, not government authority
Without changes to people’s behaviour and lifestyles, it will be impossible for the UK to reach net zero emissions by 2050. But the government is failing to put in place the conditions that would enable this to happen – or even recognise its relevance in cutting emissions and meeting climate targets. Its laissez-faire approach of simply “going with the grain of consumer choice”, according to a recent report, has no chance of bringing about the urgent changes needed.
A House of Lords inquiry assessed the role of public behaviour in meeting climate and environmental goals. The report drew on evidence from leading experts on behavioural science and social change, as well as submissions from a wide range of organisations, including Tesco, Natural England and Cycling UK.
Among the criticisms levelled at the government were accusations that it places too much faith in unproven technologies to fix the climate, and is reluctant to communicate to the public the scale of social change needed to create a low-carbon society. The varying remits of different government departments charged with helping the public change their polluting behaviour were characterised as a “muddle” and “inadequate” to the task. In some instances, government actions have pushed people away from low-carbon choices, like offering a tax cut for domestic flights just before 2021’s UN climate summit in Glasgow.
Perhaps most uncomfortable for a government that has elevated economic growth as its foremost priority, the report stresses the need for absolute reductions in many of the commonplace activities that are driving the climate crisis. This includes people buying less of the things with sizeable environmental impacts, like long-haul flights, beef and products that use a lot of resources, such as fast-fashion clothing and electronics.
And Warmists are doing what in their own lives? Are they buying less? Eating less meat? They’ve been indoctrinated into thinking that this is not their own fault, that their own actions are meaningless, and that the solution is government authoritarianism. That they should be giving up their money, liberty, and freedom to government control. To be honest, it’s a brilliant bit of propaganda to get vast amounts of people to believe this.
People will be more inclined to make changes if they feel policies are applied fairly. The report is blunt in its assessment of what this means, noting that “higher-income households which typically have a larger carbon footprint must take correspondingly larger steps to reduce their emissions”.
Emissions are highly skewed by income: across Europe, the wealthiest 10% of people have footprints of around 20 tonnes of CO? a year, compared with half that for those in the middle-income bracket. And it’s not just the size that matters: people in the top 1% have a carbon footprint from air travel alone that exceeds the total footprint of middle-income citizens. The government’s failure to intervene in what amounts to a rapid depletion of the remaining carbon budget risks deepening social inequalities further, particularly as the effects of climate change become more severe.
Yeah, well, the Elites won’t do a thing. Biden took a long fossil fueled trip, with the planes and limos/SUVs to California yesterday. He’ll travel around there today, then fly to Oregon. How many elite Warmists will be taking fossil fueled flights in private jets to the exotic vacation spot of Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, for the upcoming UN IPCC conference? I’ve been saying this is all about empowering government for almost 20 years, and that the people pushing it the hardest are the biggest hypocrites.
That the warmunists might not be practicing what they preach is a valid point, but in a way, it’s a minor one. Like the COVID fanatics, I don’t care if they wear a mask, wear two masks, cover their whole ugly faces with masks, as long as they don’t try to force other people to wear masks.
#BringBackMasks has been trending on Twitter.