Prioritise practical green policies-Telegraph
By Paul Homewood
h/t Paul Kolk
The crusade for net-zero carbon emissions tends to overlook environmental matters of arguably much more immediate interest to the public. While ministers and officials draw up complex and expensive plans to restructure Britain along decarbonised lines, voters would be forgiven for thinking that issues like the state of the nation’s waterways are neglected.
Many of the country’s water companies, responsible for the water and sewage infrastructure, are in financial trouble, and regulators are reported to be considering a new “recovery regime” to help them escape a “vicious cycle” of fines that could worsen their difficulties. This could give the companies less stringent targets for reducing leaks and the amount of sewage pumped into rivers and seas. In return, the suppliers would be expected to invest more money in infrastructure improvements.
Any move that looks like it is giving the water firms an easier time is bound to be controversial, given the level of hostility that has grown towards the privatised utilities. Some critics have already reacted furiously, arguing that it would turn Ofwat, the regulator, into a “lackey” of the companies. However, any plan for improving the water quality of Britain’s rivers and seas needs to be realistic about the costs involved. Customers are unlikely to be happy if they are passed on in considerably higher bills.
At the very least, there should be a reassessment of whether the many billions now spent each year on environmental policies are being directed towards the public’s priorities. Practical improvements should surely come ahead of abstract targets.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/31/river-pollution-sewage-ofwat-net-zero/
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
This is one of the evils of ‘net zero. Environmental issues that are real are being neglected because of the ‘religion’ of a rare gas molecule.
Obviously, no-one wants to bathe in sewage.
But saltwater is a disinfectant. It used to be accepted that providing sewage was discharged through a long enough sub-surface outlet, health risks were minimal.
I’m certainly not sure that is actually correct, but do we have properly measured empirical evidence to justify enormous costs? I doubt it.
As for the rivers, it must be pointed out that the water quality of river water is (like air-pollution in cities), enormously and obviously better than it was when I was a lad. Certainly there are problems with the old “storm water overflows”, but we need to have a realistic cost / benefit analysis before spending huge wads of money that has already been wasted on other stuff, like ruinable energy.
And one really has to question whether selling virtually all the water companies to firms overseas was very sensible.
Well said!
This issue is vastly more complex (and expensive to rectify) than much of the media coverage admits.
The issue with sewage is surface water drains into the sewage system which means at certain times of heavy rainfall, the volume arriving at sewage stations is too great to be processed so has to be released untreated into rivers or sea.
This has got worse as more hard standing is built particularly in flood plains and more water is going into the sewer system instead of naturally into rivers or into the ground.
The solution is to separate surface drainage from sewerage, but that requires a lot of cash and no doubt is a regulatory nightmare.
”… and regulators are reported to be considering a new “recovery regime‘…”
The classic approach – the solution to problems created by Government intervention is more Government intervention.
Completely off topic. Sorry Paul
Has anyone had problems with BBC complaints. I haven’t received the confirmation email on two this week. The second was about not getting the first confirmation
glen,
I had one recently – last complaint was Wednesday 29th May.
Auto
Even if they respond, they are still ignoring you.
it’s the second submission that actually gets a reaction. Sometimes they actually confirm that the person said what the BBC said they said, in answer the a complaint to ask for data proving it.
OFWAT is yet another regulator that has become absolutely useless. The water companies are in difficulties because OFWAT has no grasp of finance, and no grasp of what it continues to take to handle the effects of many decades of underinvestment in water facilities that still need catching up (we are repairing Victorian sewers) or of the damage caused by clinging on to the EU Water Directive (designed really for the Rhine water basin) as the underlying legal basis.
The law needs reform to allow sensible lower cost solutions and proper environmental works. The public needs a say in the balance between cost and effect, and where their priorities lie.
”Practical green policies” is an oxymoron.
That is the whole issue with environmentalism, it is emotion, not practicality. It is the Neo-Pagan worship of plants, animals, inanimate objects and the elements.
All this fuss over sewage in the sea raises an important point.
Surely the sea is already full of sewage?
After all it’s full of fish, and has no processing plants to deal with their sewage.
Not exactly. It has to go thru a sewer to become sewage.
“The crusade for net-zero carbon emissions tends to overlook environmental matters of arguably much more immediate interest to the public“.
The crusade for net-zero carbon emissions tends to overlook the fact that there is zero statistically significant empirical data of any kind to support the need for any of this madness ( The magical CO2 temperature control knob).