You must log in or register to comment.

passinghere OP t1_j1c3mjz wrote

> Not one English waterway, including rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal waters is in good ecological and chemical health at present, with pollution from water treatment plants and agriculture the key sources of the damage

> Targets to clean up the majority of England’s rivers, lakes and coastal waters suffering from a cocktail of agricultural and sewage pollution have been pushed back from 2027 to 2063.

Oh look another one of those Brexit "benefits" I guess as we get to put up with shit filled seas and waterways for another 36 years while the corporation continue to send insane profits to their shareholders approx £52b in shareholder pay-outs so far iirc

> Until Brexit the UK government was signed up to the water framework directive, which required countries to make sure all their waters achieved “good” chemical and ecological status by 2027 at the latest. The UK government later reduced the target to 75% of waterways reaching the single test of good ecological status by 2027 at the latest. The target for the majority of waterways to achieve good status in both chemical and ecological tests has now been pushed back to 2063, according to the documents.

> By 2027, only 4% of waters are currently on track to be in good overall condition.

Yet the environmental agency has had their funding cut to the bone by the government because they don't want any pesky complaints against their wealthy mates running the private, for profit water companies.


SsiSsiSsiSsi t1_j1c4bot wrote

What are the odds of another referendum, assuming the EU would have the UK back in the first place? Has the mood changed in the UK?


passinghere OP t1_j1c54g7 wrote

It's hard to gauge the actual public opinion, but the vast majority of the media (mainly right wing, pro-Tory, pro-Brexit and anti-EU) would have a collective fit and go into overblown hysteria at just even thinking about this.

There was already insane headlines from the usual suspects in the media just because someone vaguely suggested considering having a slight trading agreement with the EU not that long ago and the far right section of the Tory party went into collective meltdown and shouty abuse at the idea that we "give in" to the EU or we "weaken" our "supposedly" strong trading position.

For certain far right sectors in both the government and media Brexit is still some religious concept that must never ever be spoken against or they will rain down hellfire and brimstone from on high on the person that dared to suggest reality is involved in anything like running the country.... sunny uplands with unicorns farting rainbows while singing Rule Britannia! is the only way of life that these fuckwits will ever listen to


SsiSsiSsiSsi t1_j1c7u73 wrote

Jesus that’s grim, not unlike our situation with our own right wing in the US. Some portion of any group of people just seems to be broken beyond repair.


passinghere OP t1_j1ca91f wrote

Yep... and not only broken beyond repair but also determined that everyone else must live only as they demand.

Really hate / sick of the way it is.

Edit... "live and let live" is a concept totally beyond their comprehension, it's dictatorship or death with them


Crizbibble t1_j1cohgf wrote

When religion creeps into politics things get like this. The conservatives worldwide are infested with religiosity from the Taliban to the Czarists in Russia.


apenature t1_j1cpwbw wrote

Sunken cost fallacy. They can't admit they maybe made a bad choice.


Professional-Bee-190 t1_j1cttf6 wrote

The economy cratering this hard and for this long has a way of removing support for things like this. The picture will change in the voting demographic soon enough.


GavinZero t1_j1dbzde wrote

If you’re kicking the can 36 years farther down the road, just kill the program.


SRod1706 t1_j1dlvpc wrote

Because it sounds good. It's the whole premise of any net zero advertising by a company.

Look how many are promising net zero by 2050.


TogepiMain t1_j1dy1og wrote

Anything promising Net zero any further than the end of the decade is 100% lying and definitely going to be racking up carbon debt big time up to the "switch" if it happens at all in a quarter of a century


Grow_away_420 t1_j1d7efe wrote

Man, as an American, our government won't propose or plan anything that'll take longer than 4-8 years because at some point someone else is gonna get elected to try and stop it.


Dashlockhart t1_j1cxty8 wrote

Wonderful Brexit isn’t it? Independence from the EU, and they have reinvested 350millions a week into the NHS as promised ! /s


TheGlumSinger t1_j1d97ub wrote

The NHS is so flush with money after Brexit that the nurses in the UK are taking January off! /s


ThatGuy798 t1_j1dv55x wrote

No no no you don't understand, what we meant to say was the NHS will being flushed of money after Brexit!


shahzbot t1_j1didui wrote

I think most of you know this isn't Brexit at play. It's 40 odd years of electing conservative criminals into your government and allowing them to destroy your institutions and infrastructure. It started with Thatcher. This is just the reaping of what you've sown.


passinghere OP t1_j1epk7p wrote

> I think most of you know this isn't Brexit at play.

Which is totally contradicted by the facts already quoted

> Until Brexit the UK government was signed up to the water framework directive, which required countries to make sure all their waters achieved “good” chemical and ecological status by 2027 at the latest.

So just ignore the fact that this in particular is related to Brexit


shahzbot t1_j1gbb8m wrote

Brexit itself is just a symptom of the disease. The facts as presented gave me the impression that the "powers that be" saw Brexit's cancellation of the agreement as an opportunity to kick the can down the road. If they were responsible stewards of their country, they would make an effort to keep their original commitment to undoing the harm their policies have caused over the last 40 years, regardless of the agreement.


Art-Zuron t1_j1f6ccd wrote

Who needs paint stripper if you've got the River Thames?


WoodSheepClayWheat t1_j1ciw9p wrote

Is that a natural use of "move back"? To me, further in the future is always forward.


passinghere OP t1_j1cjdwx wrote

It feels correct to me in this case as they have moved back / delayed the date of implementing this (by 36 fucking years), if they had moved it forwards then it would be done sooner.


_163 t1_j1cndxq wrote

A deadline gets set back / moved back yeah which is later in time


Martianmanhunter94 t1_j1dptmm wrote

They may not be in good shape but at least a person can catch fish in the Thames again, even if they aren’t fit to eat.


Winkniw t1_j1dq9x5 wrote

Ah that sweet relief of procrastination. I know it too well


Chris_M_23 t1_j1dx6g6 wrote

As an environmental scientist, it is extremely difficult to cleanup surface water. At scale, England won’t ever be able to achieve this without the invention of some new, significantly more effective technology


Highlandertr3 t1_j1fmb0y wrote

I think most of us would just settle for them not making it actively worse at this point.


EddiesGrandson t1_j1fa7ex wrote

This will be no different than the date to get to 100% EV’s……