Which way would you vote - environment v. pouvoir d'achat?

[EuroTrash]

Just came across this, tangentially related to the gilets jaunes protest.

" quand on demande aux Français de choisir entre écologie et pouvoir d'achat, les cadres votent à 56% pour la préservation de l'environnement, alors que les catégories populaires privilégient massivement le pouvoir d'achat, à 71%."

I have to declare a bias here because part of my work is in the environmental sector, I see a lot of reports and a lot of statistics and I do believe that sacrificing the planet in favour of short term convenience and comforts is irresponsible, we should think about our kids and their kids and what our choices today are doing to their futures. As individuals we try to shrug off the responsibility by saying "what little me does won't affect the big picture" but if we all think that then it will make a huge difference, because the choices that individuals make as consumers determine the global consumption model. It's not looking good for the planet if 71% of the popular class say "s0d the planet, me-me-me comes first" - and that's the ones who admit to it, there are also plenty who vote for what their conscience tells them is right, but when it comes to it, they do the opposite.

Any voters?

[Lehaut]

I think its almost impossible to get people to voluntarily reduce their spending power for the good of the planet.

According to some figures nearly a third of young people in France smoke! Faced with that sort of mentality only draconian measures across the board would work if you want to change the current system, and would have to affect everyone equally. We buy very little prepared food, virtually nothing with sugar. If you compare other people's baskets in the supermarket, we are definately the "odd" ones out. However, if everyone did this overnight, the knock on effect on the food industry and people's jobs would be catastrophic. The average UK debt (including mortgages) is nearly £60,000, (its less in France,) so you can understand why people say one think and act another way.

I pin my hopes on technology finding an answer, coupled with simple things like re-forestation.

[YCCMB]

It's difficult to see this as an issue solely tied back to how people vote. Recent history has showed us with devastating clarity what happens when people don't really know (or research) what, exactly, they're voting for.

Environmental issues are a small part of the manifesto of most major political parties. Certainly, in France and the U.K. there isn't a strong enough Green Party, putting environmental issues front and centre of their political manifesto, to really make a dent in the political mainstream. That political mainstream is sometimes strong on rhetoric about environmental concerns, but usually pretty short on actions. And often, the actions aren't very joined-up, or are rolled up into simply agreeing to international targets, treaties and standards, or are simply kicked so far down the road as to be useless.

So I'd venture to suggest it's pretty difficult, if not impossible, to vote in any meaningful way for an environmental agenda.

[Théière]

Has "le planet Bleu" been shown in France?

[BritinBretagne]

Yes. And it’s on French Netflix.

[woolybanana]

It is all about education really. Which includes learnng that population growth Is maybe the most destructive factor.

Of course one would forego certain things in life - excessive choice in such areas as food and clothes, reducing use of oil based products, only having reusuable plastics, limiting one’s world cruises.........

What one will NOT stand for is the politically based manipulation of the population by extremists who would have us all apologizing for our life and standards, and living in small tightly regulated communities where we all move and live to order as well as being told what we can eat.

[richard51]

An interesting dilemma on which a sociologist probably has written a book on.

For my tuppence worth to explain the findings: say one takes an average manager who probably has more spending power and hence more material things than the average other worker. Then the finding can be explained by the fact that it could be "easier" for the managers to go for the environment option rather than the poorer other workers eg they can forego the car for public transport whereas the other group already uses public transport or must walks.

But yes, its all down to material greed in the end with financial models calling for more and more, year on year. Perhaps brother WB feels his lifestyle is environment friendly enough so ....

[mint]

A few years ago, I accepted an offer of a tour of our local tri, both the black bag place and also where they sort out the yellow bags.

Boy, did I get my eyes opened!!!!  The smell was horrendous and the way workers had to sort out all the yellow bag stuff on a conveyor belt looked to be a truly unpleasant job to have to do.

Since then, I have been a relentless environmentalist and OH regularly gets told off for putting things in the wrong bag.  To be fair, it's not always clear what should go where.  How am I to know what is single-use plastic and what is recyclable?  Sure, there are labels but many items require you to make a guess and hope you have guessed correctly.

[richard51]

Mint

You obviously need everything put on a plate for you.

How much of your waste do you really need to create and there actually are lots of labels if you look. France is a lot better than UK btw.

Reference recent greed post.

Actually, I suspect that whilst this issue does need to be addressed there are other, more significant, issues.

[richard51]

queenie -

Et may say otherwise but this thread is nothing to do with how people vote politically.

[YCCMB]

Are you having to trawl back through even more threads in order to try and pick a fight because no-one's biting tonight Richard? Are you wondering WHY no-one's biting? It's mostly because they can't make any sense whatsoever of your fractured train of thought and incoherent ramblings. I'm just guessing.

[richard51]

"It's difficult to see this as an issue solely tied back to how people vote."

Your quote - this thread.

[YCCMB]

Your trawl, though.

Have you ever been diagnosed with ASD? It's not too late, you know.

[richard51]

Unless its too long I do tend to read the tread that I post on.

I have not been diagnosed with autism.

[idun]

Recently it has been drawn to our attention that we are not sorting our rubbish out properly. We thought we were and were shocked to find that we aren't.

Now we look at all the labels and frankly I am appalled at how much is not recyclable and sometimes things would have to be taken apart to recycle 'bits'. 

So this question for me is inutile.

Both ideas can live in harmony, the environment and the pouvoir d'achat. Companies, years ago, should have been told to make all packaging recyclable and the didn't. They still aren't and that is the disgrace, because even if there are no laws, companies should just do it. Then only a good choice would be made.

Incidentally, all you fussy recyclers like me, do you wear 'fleece'/'polaires', because they are really BAD pollutants. And I am ashamed to say that we have far too many articles in this house that are 'fleece'.

[woolybanana]

Flees can be got rid of with flees powder. It works on the dogs.

Many supermarkets are just ignorant, lazy stupid, or unwilling to change and wilfully sell products that cannot be recycled. For example, my local Leclerc continues to sell ear buds with plastic stalks and wont change until obliged to by law. I have asked.

[richard51]

Flea.

No brother, they are into profits for their owners. Retail trade have yachting (with motors) type owners.

Those with lots of dosh care more about the money than the environment.

Its the middle types that have some sort of conscience.