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

61–70 of 134 posts

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#61

Post by [deleted] »

toyg wrote: post #59
akhatri_aus wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's speculative though isn't it? The rules could be better outside of the EU if equivalence is used (and judged from statements this week) and the EU standards would simply be the baseline. The EU hasn't been a panacea thus far, particularly with the environment. The strongest influence they've had is with personal rights & freedoms but there have consistently been lapses when it comes to the environment. They ref…

I’m not sure you’re familiar with the UK situation. The country has no green tradition, it was dragged into modern practices kicking and screaming by German and Scandinavian-inspired EU regulations. Their rivers and beaches only started looking clean in the early ‘00s. The Cameron government promised to be “the greenest ever” and failed to deliver on all accounts, dropping the whole issue after less than a year in po…

[deleted]

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#62

Post by userbinator »

One thing to keep in mind is to try to imagine what the world would be like had insecticides like neonicotinoids not been put into use. Sure, there wouldn't be pollution from them, but would there be other negative effects?

Let's not forget that DDT, PCBs, and CFCs have contributed greatly in positive ways too. If they weren't used, the planet would be less polluted but we might have nowhere near the same quality of life as we do today --- just imagine how people lived several hundred years ago. It's hard to say, really.

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#63

Post by amelius »

userbinator wrote: post #62

One thing to keep in mind is to try to imagine what the world would be like had insecticides like neonicotinoids not been put into use. Sure, there wouldn't be pollution from them, but would there be other negative effects? Let's not forget that DDT, PCBs, and CFCs have contributed greatly in positive ways too. If they weren't used, the planet would be less polluted but we might have nowhere near the same quality of…

> If they weren't used, the planet would be less polluted but we might have nowhere near the same quality of life as we do today

Those "organic/biological" products in the supermarket look fine to me.

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#64

Post by userbinator »

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?

Why do people think it is acceptable to pollute?

Pollution is usually a side-effect, not a goal. For example, people didn't mine and burn coal for nothing, they used it for heating and energy generation. Look at the Industrial Revolution for another vivid example.

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#66

Post by chrisseaton »

toyg wrote: post #59
akhatri_aus wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's speculative though isn't it? The rules could be better outside of the EU if equivalence is used (and judged from statements this week) and the EU standards would simply be the baseline. The EU hasn't been a panacea thus far, particularly with the environment. The strongest influence they've had is with personal rights & freedoms but there have consistently been lapses when it comes to the environment. They ref…

I’m not sure you’re familiar with the UK situation. The country has no green tradition, it was dragged into modern practices kicking and screaming by German and Scandinavian-inspired EU regulations. Their rivers and beaches only started looking clean in the early ‘00s. The Cameron government promised to be “the greenest ever” and failed to deliver on all accounts, dropping the whole issue after less than a year in po…

> a Tory government that is naturally pro-business and anti-environment

Almost nobody in the world is 'anti-environment'. That's a ludicrous claim. Many people think other things matter more than the environment, or don't care about the environment at all, sure, but if you think any people, let alone major political parties, are working against the environment deliberately for its own sake I think you're barmy.

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#67

Post by xiaq »

arethuza wrote: post #60

If that is the Dubh loch at the head of Glen Muick then I wonder how on earth stuff would get in there - it's fairly remote and reasonably high up. No farming territory for miles. I wonder if anti-midgie lotions have these things in them?

They can travel through the air (which was how DDT ended up in Antarctica).

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#68

Post by pjc50 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #66
toyg wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure you’re familiar with the UK situation. The country has no green tradition, it was dragged into modern practices kicking and screaming by German and Scandinavian-inspired EU regulations. Their rivers and beaches only started looking clean in the early ‘00s. The Cameron government promised to be “the greenest ever” and failed to deliver on all accounts, dropping the whole issue after less than a year in po…

> a Tory government that is naturally pro-business and anti-environment Almost nobody in the world is 'anti-environment'. That's a ludicrous claim. Many people think other things matter more than the environment, or don't care about the environment at all, sure, but if you think any people, let alone major political parties, are working against the environment deliberately for its own sake I think you're barmy.

There are definitely people who are anti-environmentalist, for whatever reason - seeing the environmentalists as on the other side of the culture war. The environment itself is not at issue, just the opposition to those humans who are in favour of environmental protection.

Resulting in stupid stunts like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal which really is pollution for its own sake.

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#69

Post by userbinator »

amelius wrote: post #63
userbinator wrote: post #62

One thing to keep in mind is to try to imagine what the world would be like had insecticides like neonicotinoids not been put into use. Sure, there wouldn't be pollution from them, but would there be other negative effects? Let's not forget that DDT, PCBs, and CFCs have contributed greatly in positive ways too. If they weren't used, the planet would be less polluted but we might have nowhere near the same quality of…

> If they weren't used, the planet would be less polluted but we might have nowhere near the same quality of life as we do today Those "organic/biological" products in the supermarket look fine to me.

Those "organic/biological" products in the supermarket look fine to me.

...but can the whole population survive on those exclusively, or even afford them?

Re: English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal

#70

Post by pmyteh »

chrisseaton wrote: post #66
toyg wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure you’re familiar with the UK situation. The country has no green tradition, it was dragged into modern practices kicking and screaming by German and Scandinavian-inspired EU regulations. Their rivers and beaches only started looking clean in the early ‘00s. The Cameron government promised to be “the greenest ever” and failed to deliver on all accounts, dropping the whole issue after less than a year in po…

> a Tory government that is naturally pro-business and anti-environment Almost nobody in the world is 'anti-environment'. That's a ludicrous claim. Many people think other things matter more than the environment, or don't care about the environment at all, sure, but if you think any people, let alone major political parties, are working against the environment deliberately for its own sake I think you're barmy.

It may be phrased infelicitously, but I think thinking more-or-less any other good is worth more counts as anti-environmental, given that politics is an endless series of tradeoffs.

I mean, in the same sense that socialists are often seen as anti-business. It's not so much that they dislike businesses per se (most of us in the social democratic tradition see markets and those who operate in them as an important source of wealth and innovation) but that, given a choice, they would direct government spending to more-or-less anything other than making business owners richer.

Post reply on HN