Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 134 posts

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#11

Post by jorleif »

timecube wrote: post #9
nlperguiy wrote: post #8

How would there be a capitalist incentive not to do these things? Do we really need regulations? Why do these things happen? Why do people think it is acceptable to pollute?

>How would there be a capitalist incentive not to do these things? Not sure what a capitalist incentive is, but we have plenty of ways to potentially regulate this. Are you asking about technical feasibility of finding the actors responsible for it? >Do we really need regulations? Yes. >Why do these things happen? Greed/profit motive. >Why do people think it is acceptable to pollute? Greed/profit motive.

Sure greed/profit motive, but it is accepted by the general public because it is local direct benefit (less crop failure) vs diffuse harm to a large area.

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#12

Post by vixen99 »

jimnotgym wrote: post #3

After years of rubbish in the UK press about the impact of regulations from the EU, they can add protecting fish, bird and most likely human health to the list of 'harm' done. I'm glad the EU still cares about the environment.

What regulation and what 'caring' (in this instance)? "No official limits exists in the EU for neonicotinoid pollution in freshwater".

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#13

Post by nlperguiy »

timecube wrote: post #9
nlperguiy wrote: post #8

How would there be a capitalist incentive not to do these things? Do we really need regulations? Why do these things happen? Why do people think it is acceptable to pollute?

>How would there be a capitalist incentive not to do these things? Not sure what a capitalist incentive is, but we have plenty of ways to potentially regulate this. Are you asking about technical feasibility of finding the actors responsible for it? >Do we really need regulations? Yes. >Why do these things happen? Greed/profit motive. >Why do people think it is acceptable to pollute? Greed/profit motive.

> Not sure what a capitalist incentive is, but we have plenty of ways to potentially regulate this. Are you asking about technical feasibility of finding the actors responsible for it?

I was thinking, in the framework of capitalism, what would the incentive be, other than regulation, to not pollute? Why does it not work, is the incentive missing?

For example, there are companies like Clean Harbors that earn billions from recycling toxic waste, oil etc. Are they earning money because regulations need to be met, or is there a profit to be made?

If latter, how come no one is trying to make profit by capturing pesticides/insecticides?

Would deregularization make these billion dollar waste collection companies bankrupt?

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#14

Post by fsloth »

nlperguiy wrote: post #8

How would there be a capitalist incentive not to do these things? Do we really need regulations? Why do these things happen? Why do people think it is acceptable to pollute?

"Do we really need regulations?"

Yes. You need to read on industrial history if this is not obvious to you.

The nature of business and industry is such that they prefer local short term optimizations. In this context an environmental hazard is not considered a concern for various reasons, including, it incurs no immediate negative impact on the factory, the impact of one factory would be insignificant because everyone else is doing it and cutting chemical X would give competitors a financial edge, etc.

The only way to curb culture which creates negative externalities is to pipe those externalities back to it's source. Regulations and fines are a one way to make sure there is a feedback from negative externalities back to their source.

Think of it as an algorithmic problem - local optimization seldom leads to a global optimum. Hence, sometimes global tweaks can benefit an entire system.

The good news is that regulations work, and damage can heal.

See for example how CFC:s destroyed ozone layer before banning them.

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#15

Post by adrianN »

damal wrote: post #10
jimnotgym wrote: post #3

After years of rubbish in the UK press about the impact of regulations from the EU, they can add protecting fish, bird and most likely human health to the list of 'harm' done. I'm glad the EU still cares about the environment.

Different countries have different priorities. That's the good thing about sovereignty. Don't like your current government's ideas? Replace them at the next election. On the other hand, you don't like the EU's ideas? Um... good luck with that. Just be glad that the EU's been relatively benign so far.

I think my chances of changing my country's government if I don't like it are pretty much the same as changing the EU.

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#16

Post by Moru »

adrianN wrote: post #15
damal wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different countries have different priorities. That's the good thing about sovereignty. Don't like your current government's ideas? Replace them at the next election. On the other hand, you don't like the EU's ideas? Um... good luck with that. Just be glad that the EU's been relatively benign so far.

I think my chances of changing my country's government if I don't like it are pretty much the same as changing the EU.

It's the difference of (1/country population) and (1/511,805,088). So slightly higher chance changing your countrys government. But you have the added bonus of having the same language, good luck with that in the EU... :-)

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#17

Post by a_bonobo »

baxtr wrote: post #2

I wonder what the effect of neonicotinoids on humans is... it can’t be good

The NIH has a metastudy here: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp515/

>As reviewed here, four studies reported low rates of adverse health effects from acute neonic exposure. Even the most severe outcomes, including two fatalities, may have been mediated by other factors (age, underlying health conditions, undetected coexposures). The acute poisoning studies did, however, elucidate clinical findings important for the diagnosis and treatment of acute neonic exposures, including a better understanding of neonic toxicokinetics in humans.

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#18

Post by giobox »

damal wrote: post #10
jimnotgym wrote: post #3

After years of rubbish in the UK press about the impact of regulations from the EU, they can add protecting fish, bird and most likely human health to the list of 'harm' done. I'm glad the EU still cares about the environment.

Different countries have different priorities. That's the good thing about sovereignty. Don't like your current government's ideas? Replace them at the next election. On the other hand, you don't like the EU's ideas? Um... good luck with that. Just be glad that the EU's been relatively benign so far.

> Just be glad that the EU's been relatively benign so far.

The creation of free movement of people, goods, services and capital across 28 States and creating a common currency used by many of them is arguably not “benign”.

For avoidance of doubt I’m in no way expressing an opinion on the merits of these - simply that it is not benign in the sense of having done nothing.

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#19

Post by arm85 »

vixen99 wrote: post #12
jimnotgym wrote: post #3

After years of rubbish in the UK press about the impact of regulations from the EU, they can add protecting fish, bird and most likely human health to the list of 'harm' done. I'm glad the EU still cares about the environment.

What regulation and what 'caring' (in this instance)? "No official limits exists in the EU for neonicotinoid pollution in freshwater".

No but they did attempt to ban neonicotinoids across Europe, against stiff opposition from the UK government.

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#20

Post by kybernetikos »

giobox wrote: post #18
damal wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different countries have different priorities. That's the good thing about sovereignty. Don't like your current government's ideas? Replace them at the next election. On the other hand, you don't like the EU's ideas? Um... good luck with that. Just be glad that the EU's been relatively benign so far.

> Just be glad that the EU's been relatively benign so far. The creation of free movement of people, goods, services and capital across 28 States and creating a common currency used by many of them is arguably not “benign”. For avoidance of doubt I’m in no way expressing an opinion on the merits of these - simply that it is not benign in the sense of having done nothing.

Those things sound fantastic.
Post reply on HN