81–90 of 134 posts
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.
The UK is still in the EU and yet the river is still polluted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you? The runoff still comes out of greenhouses where the insecticide will be allowed to be used after the ban. What the article implies is the ban will have little effect & advocates a total ban. Commercial interests won. > The proposed EU ban would still allow neonicotinoids to be used in greenhouses and as a flea treatment for pets. A new Greenpeace study suggests neonicotinoids are frequently found in waterway…
How's that supposed to happen? I'd suspect drainage would flow vertically into the ground water. Is the water table as high as to level with the river so the pesticide can move sideways?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_table
(The first time I heard this was a big "aha" / "of course it works that way, how else would it work" moment for me. Ala XKCD 10000 [0]. Hopefully you're one of today's lucky winners!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he means it will get worse when we leave EU
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…
Not exactly, here have been very strong comments from some in the government that suggest that Britain is going to add environmental regulations to the 'bonfire of the regulations'.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-safety-...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-regu...
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.
Your argument is like saying if I sit and watch my friend beat you up, not intervening because he promised me a few quid, then I'm blameless and not "anti" you in any way.
You're quibbling over semantics whilst we're trying to shine light on the destruction of irreplaceable natural resources, and pollution of our environment that will harm future generations.
If you can show Tories will preference the environment over business interests [of their donors, members] then please do so; this present argument is unhelpful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 diagn…
Keyword here: "acute". Nothing about chronic exposure, which is what is relevant here. Even if they did have a long-term study of low-dose exposure, it would be an extremely limited one (rats, mice, controlled conditions) missing the mix of much more stuff we are exposed to all the time. Having suffered from (finally clinically diagnosed and clinically treated with chelators DMPS and DMSA - with great results) low-do…
Wow. I'm extremely curious about how you found out, what your symptoms were, and what resources you used to educate yourself. Do you think that people with your condition are misdiagnosed on a large scale?
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.
That's entirely expected, the EU as a whole is more liberal, more green, and more socialist than the Tories.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
You're right, not anti-environment just completely uncaring provided their supporters/patrons make more profits. Your argument is like saying if I sit and watch my friend beat you up, not intervening because he promised me a few quid, then I'm blameless and not "anti" you in any way. You're quibbling over semantics whilst we're trying to shine light on the destruction of irreplaceable natural resources, and pollution…
I never understand what people mean by this criticism. I'm debating people based on the words they use and what they mean by using those words... and that's a bad thing? What else you would like me to debate them on instead? Their syntax and grammar?
And my local Conservative councillors seems to Tweet mainly about school funding and how important is is to preserve the green belt for the sake of the environment, so there you go.