The Water Pollution Cover-Up

[Tony Koziol]

Totally correct Tim, all governments have failed to act, they have all failed us.

In 1974/79 we would walk along the side of Moston Brook to school and after a flood the banks would be littered with tampons, johnnies and no doubt faeces. This problem goes back a long long way.

 

[Graham Tremble]

I'll answer that. Britain. Pre-nationalisation.

What century?

 

[David Will 2]

I was wondering where my EA rod license money goes and now I know - bonuses for water companies that have 'met their environmental targets'. What a joke.

And the EA has the cheek to impose a disproportionately hefty £2,500.00 fine on individuals unable to produce a rod license when asked. Makes me want to buy a caravan and take up poaching.
.

The EA don't fine people , the courts do that . Governed by sentencing guidelines set by the Government.

 

[Kevin Steele]

The EA don't fine people , the courts do that . Governed by sentencing guidelines set by the Government.

What difference does that make? Does it alter what I should say next time an Environment Agency Fisheries Enforcement Officer asks to see my license?
.

 

[Huanzhou Zhu]

Speaking of rod license money…I don’t know if I should believe it or not

 

[Neil Blood]

To the point made earlier in this discussion, the only party which seems genuinely interested in this whole problem/scandal is the Lib Dems and they really do bang on about it, unlike Labour!

So I know who I’ll be voting for at the next general election

Moving forward, I don't understand how anyone can vote Tory, if they are an angler. To the Tories, environmental issues are just green crap, which gets in the way of economic growth and house building!

 

[Damian Kimmins]

Yes the EA are unfit for purpose. But why is that?

As ever I notice that the Govt. Seem to evade criticism on this issue? The EA is run by people directly appointed by the Govt and on a budget decided by the Govt. The buck stops directly with them.

If you voted Conservative in 2010, you did so on the basis of an election manifesto which promised to cut public spending on environmental protections. Remember Cameron and Osbournes much vaunted bonfire of the quangos? Laws and regulations to prevent pollution were described by Cameron as "green crap" and as "red tape". Osbourne even tried to argue that environmental protections were "a handbrake on the economy", despite never once being able to point to any independent study that came to the same conclusion.

And if you voted Conservative in 2014, the manifesto promised to go even further with the cuts. Do you not remember the manic glee with Liz Truss waived through further cuts. Unsurprisingly there was a mass exodus of talent from Defra and its delivery bodies.

What did you think would happen when the EA's budget was cut in half? And the people placed in charge of it were political appointments designed to ensure the organisation didn't push back against the cuts, and did exactly what the developers and big corporations wanted.

One of Camerons first appointments was to place a house-builder in charge of Natural England...says it all doesn't it?

The EA is now exactly the dysfunctioning, toothless organisation that the Conservative Party bosses wished it to be. It didn't happen by accident.

Oh, and if you look at the recent Autumn statement you will realise that Sunak plans to cut Defra's budget by a further 11% in the next financial year. Genius.

Anyone who might vote Labour at the next election might consider the same deregulation in order to build one and a half million homes.

 

[Tony Koziol]

To the point made earlier in this discussion, the only party which seems genuinely interested in this whole problem/scandal is the Lib Dems and they really do bang on about it, unlike Labour!

So I know who I’ll be voting for at the next general election

Moving forward, I don't understand how anyone can vote Tory, if they are an angler. To the Tories, environmental issues are just green crap, which gets in the way of economic growth and house building!

Not too sure on the Lib Dems here Neil and their understanding of green or enviromental issues, in particular Ed Daveys understanding as I believe he was involved in the rubber stamping of Hinckley Point whilst in coalition a Nuclear Power Station !!!

Ed again whilst in coalition was also involved in the HUGE miscarriage of justice with the introduction of the Horizon System at the Post Office when all those poor sub post offices owners/workers were wrongly convicted as the system cast them as thieves.

 

[Kevin Steele]

I think the dangers to the environment of nuclear power is alarmist and misleading. As long as the waste-products are safely disposed of, they are cleaner than any other form of power, including wind farms, that are built on tons of concrete. Solar panels might also be considered the cleanest, but do we really want to carpet the countryside with them (?), and they rely on storage that depends on the mining of lithium, often by child labour.

Sir Ed is still a slime-ball.

Anyway, back to the water companies...
.

 

[Joe Winstanley]

Intresting Joe, where has this been adopted and proved to be successful?
G.T.

I don't think it has Graham, or at least I think it unlikely given the unique circumstances we find ourselves within the UK, not least the idiosyncratic way in which the Govt agencies are organised, the fact that England is the only country in the world with 100% of it's water utilities privatised. And the fact we are one of the most densely populated nations in the western world.

What I like about the idea is that each catchment will be regulated differently according to the needs and issues of that specific catchment. And the model is designed to ensure more accountability, as well as redefining the role of the EA. And scrapping OFWAT.

 

[Joe Winstanley]

Totally correct Tim, all governments have failed to act, they have all failed us.

In 1974/79 we would walk along the side of Moston Brook to school and after a flood the banks would be littered with tampons, johnnies and no doubt faeces. This problem goes back a long long way.

It is simply undeniable that things have gotten dramatically worse in the last decade. Markedly fewer inspections of sewage works and farms due to an axing of 2500 staff, no available budget to follow through prosecutions, a 50% reduction in water monitoring (the thinking being that if your not testing, your not finding a problem).

 

[Joe Winstanley]

Not too sure on the Lib Dems here Neil and their understanding of green or enviromental issues, in particular Ed Daveys understanding as I believe he was involved in the rubber stamping of Hinckley Point whilst in coalition a Nuclear Power Station !!!

Ed again whilst in coalition was also involved in the HUGE miscarriage of justice with the introduction of the Horizon System at the Post Office when all those poor sub post offices owners/workers were wrongly convicted as the system cast them as thieves

You can deal with nuclear waste over time, even if its a 1000 years. Once C02 is in the atmosphere, there isn't really much we can do about it. It's the much lesser of two evils.

 

[Kevin Steele]

You can deal with nuclear waste over time, even if its a 1000 years. Once C02 is in the atmosphere, there isn't really much we can do about it. It's the much lesser of two evils.

I agree with the former, but you can capture CO2 - it's what plants are doing all the time, but if we cut down the Amazon rain forest it'll take a lot of replacing and a long time before the planet benefits from the effects.

Methane is worse than CO2 though, and rearing animals for meat and dairy has a massively adverse effect on the use of land. I love meat and dairy, but I'm seriously considering giving up meat and milk (I like cheese, but it doesn't like me).

Either way, we first of all have to accept that if anything is gong to change we all need to adopt more environment-friendly behaviours.
.

 

[Tony Koziol]

It is simply undeniable that things have gotten dramatically worse in the last decade. Markedly fewer inspections of sewage works and farms due to an axing of 2500 staff, no available budget to follow through prosecutions, a 50% reduction in water monitoring (the thinking being that if your not testing, your not finding a problem).

Maybe those jobs were axed and budgets cut because it was clear the EA was ineffective and the people at the top table could not present a case to increase budgets. I can't remember the courts being open 24 hours because the EA were ever over working them.

Lets not forget the EA took over from the NRA the people who straightend rivers and ripped out trees and bushes!

The EA are responsible for their own demise, they aren't fit for purpose and never have been.

 

[Tony Koziol]

You can deal with nuclear waste over time, even if its a 1000 years. Once C02 is in the atmosphere, there isn't really much we can do about it. It's the much lesser of two evils.

Does dealing with nuclear waste include Chernobyl and Fukushima as for the 1000 year business when was that tested and proven.

Yes its a lesser of many evils.

 

[Joe Winstanley]

I agree with the former, but you can capture CO2 - it's what plants are doing all the time, but if we cut down the Amazon rain forest it'll take a lot of replacing and a long time before the planet benefits from the effects.

Methane is worse than CO2 though, and rearing animals for meat and dairy has a massively adverse effect on the use of land. I love meat and dairy, but I'm seriously considering giving up meat and milk (I like cheese, but it doesn't like me).

Either way, we first of all have to accept that if anything is gong to change we all need to adopt more environment-friendly behaviours.
.

Yes plants can capture CO2, and in some cases (not all) soils can sequester that CO2 into the soil, but we need them to do that, while we also reduce emissions as it is estimated it takes around 1000 years for CO2 released from fossil fuels to be sequestered back in the geological carbon stores.

Methane - as a greenhouse gas it is 80 times more powerful than CO2, but the overall levels of CO2 are far more problematic. But critically, methane as a flow gas is destroyed in the atmosphere within a 12-year period. So emissions from livestock only contribute to global warming for a 12-year period. Assuming the number of cattle remains the same, the global warming effect is neutral over a 12-year period. This point is never made by opponents of livestock farming. But where is gets really interesting is when you consider that methane emitted from livestock forms part of the biogenic carbon cycle, so any carbon emitted is effectively recycled in a relatively quick timescale.

The problem with the way emissions are agriculture are represented, is that all livestock farming systems are grouped together and a very narrow view of land use is taken. E.g. emissions from beef are based on US feedlot systems where cattle are housed all year around and fed on huge amounts of cereal and concentrates. This is world apart from grass-based systems which are the norm in the UK. This misrepresentation is often deliberate, and by those who have very a obvious agenda.

On many soils in the UK, grass based livestock farming systems have the potential to actually sequester carbon into carbon depleted soils, thus removing large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. The best thing the consumer can do, is insist on grass fed beef and dairy.

 

[Joe Winstanley]

Maybe those jobs were axed and budgets cut because it was clear the EA was ineffective and the people at the top table could not present a case to increase budgets. I can't remember the courts being open 24 hours because the EA were ever over working them.

Lets not forget the EA took over from the NRA the people who straightend rivers and ripped out trees and bushes!

The EA are responsible for their own demise, they aren't fit for purpose and never have been.

Who do you think decides who runs the EA? Do you not accept that the EA management structure isn't directly appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?

In 22-years of working in agricultural pollution, and thus having various dealings with the EA on a regular basis, without question they have been massively hindered by the impact of massive cuts in the last decade. I've seen it first hand.

 

[Joe Winstanley]

Does dealing with nuclear waste include Chernobyl and Fukushima as for the 1000 year business when was that tested and proven.

Yes its a lesser of many evils.

Nuclear half-life's are pretty well understood aren't they?

And yes I know all about Chernobyl. My Grandfather and his workman were unblocking a drain, halfway up a Cumbrian fell when that cloud burst. Both dead within 5 years, cancers everywhere.

 

[Tony Koziol]

Nuclear half-life's are pretty well understood aren't they?

And yes I know all about Chernobyl. My Grandfather and his workman were unblocking a drain, halfway up a Cumbrian fell when that cloud burst. Both dead within 5 years, cancers everywhere.

Sorry to hear this about your Grandfather Joe.

My trust in scientists is on the same level as politicians.

 

[Tony Koziol]

Who do you think decides who runs the EA? Do you not accept that the EA management structure isn't directly appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?

In 22-years of working in agricultural pollution, and thus having various dealings with the EA on a regular basis, without question they have been massively hindered by the impact of massive cuts in the last decade. I've seen it first hand.

My experience in budget setting, targets, objectives and staffing levels lead me to conclude very quickly that you have to fight your corner very very hard it matters not who you work for. If you lose staff and budget you have to work harder and cut your cloth accordingly. It did you no favours if you whinged and whined about how badly you were treated. That is life and it can be a bitch.