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 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 refuse to pound down on coal in Eastern Europe/Northern Greece & overlooking Diesel-gate are just more recent ones.
The only thing that can help the environment is if green politicians get a sufficient vote in the country involved
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...
Diesel-gate is a different issue and highlights the weakness of recognising other countries’ testing standards without setting sufficiently stringent regulations to ensure that testing was valid. The problem was that member states weren’t required to do their own testing but to trust that whoever did it had done it correctly while incentivising the testing state to be lenient lest they lose the payments to perform tests.
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 power; the current one doesn’t really have a green policy at all, unless you count “build on greenfields” as such.
Because of the hardcore first-past-post electoral system, green parties in England are happy when they manage to elect 1 MP and maybe throw enough races against Labour that “reds” have to listen a bit; but in the meantime they get a Tory government that is naturally pro-business and anti-environment. The only real influence they can have is by winning seats in the proportionally-assigned EU Parliament, where they gang up with the more numerous Eurogreens and deeply influence actual regulations.
Leaving the EU is a tragedy for UK greens, and it will kill any semblance of environmental policy in the country.
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.
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.
Maybe if you ask them rationally what their opinion is, it will come out pretty balanced, but that standard glosses over a lot of deeply rooted bias.
Resulting in stupid stunts like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal which really is pollution for its own sake.
Typical examples of this culture war are nuclear power and GMO agriculture. The scientific consensus is settled: using GMOs in agriculture would be better for environment, but nevertheless it is the "environmentalists" who particularly oppose them.
Is it? I'm not aware of the GMO counterpart of the IPCC here and, unlike the question of global warming, there is a problem with Monsanto-funded studies muddying the waters.
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.
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.
Many people, such as myself, want positive action to protect the environment from damage to essential ecosystems, want preservation of green spaces, protection of native species, and such like.
Saying "the videos aren't making policies to actively harm the environment and do they're not anti-environment"is to entirely miss the substance of the argument which is that they're not doing enough to protect it and are seemingly ignoring environmental issues when profits can be made.
One often finds councillors at odds with the party as they focus much more on local issues. Conservative councillors in rural areas will be inclined to protect green belt, counter village in-fill developments, oppose fracking, etc, despite these being things the Tories as a party support (because: profits).
Tories are strong on rhetoric wrt green belt, just weak on protection.
> Environmentalism, as a movement, is an alternative world view and a substitute for Christianity.
They aren't against the environment itself. I'm sure they don't particularly care about it, but they don't hate the environment for the sake of it as far as I can see.
> EU vote to extend the ban to all outdoor uses is expected soon.
Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
> 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 waterways close to greenhouses where they have been used.
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!)
A drainage basin or 'catchment area' is any area of land where precipitation collects and drains off into a common outlet, such as into a river, bay, or other body of water. The drainage basin includes all the surface water from rain runoff, snowmelt, and nearby streams that run downslope towards the shared outlet, as well as the groundwater underneath the earth's surface.[1] Drainage basins connect into other drainage basins at lower elevations in a hierarchical pattern, with smaller sub-drainage basins, which in turn drain into another common outlet.[1]
> In response to the study, the European Commission recommended a restriction of their use across the European Union. On 29 April 2013, 15 of the 27 EU member states voted to restrict the use of three neonicotinoids for two years starting 1 December 2013.
> The UK, which voted against the bill, disagreed: "Having a healthy bee population is a top priority for us, but we did not support the proposal for a ban because our scientific evidence doesn’t support it."
> The decision was up for review in 2016. In March 2017, The Guardian printed an article which claimed that they had obtained information that indicated that the European commission wants a complete ban and cite "high acute risks to bees". A ban could be in place this year (2017) if the proposals are approved by a majority of EU member states
Sorry to mock you, but environmental concerns affect us all. Earth is one giant connected system; everything eventually influences everything else. It's just a matter of the latency of the connections. Pollution is something we need to tackle globally, because many types of pollutants don't break down naturally or necessarily become less dangerous. On the contrary, many continue to accumulate and are concentrated by natural processes into places where water drains--this is why we find these things in rivers and lakes first, and in the highest concentrations. They are everywhere, tho.
Point is, its about who enforcing it not what. If even that does not fix your observations, I would like to request some proof/citations.
That's entirely expected, the EU as a whole is more liberal, more green, and more socialist than the Tories.
That's not really different in the EU.
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.
I think that you're using the word in a pretty unusual way there, perhaps inspired by medical usage. 'benign' comes from the latin meaning 'good', and has the same root as 'benefactor', 'beneficial', 'benefit' or 'bonus'. In its nonmedical sense it almost always refers to something being good, not having negligible effect.