Separating our sewers from the rain discharge would help massively as our sewer system is ancient but the cost would be colossal. I recall an estimated figure of about £700bn and that was before the pandemic so you can probably add 20% on for inflation and another 30% because all these large projects go over budget.
I think it needs to be done though however long and costly it is, walking over smelling rainwater drains (and cars parked over them smell terrible) during hot weather, and the problem is getting worse, which also happens in some high street drains, is worse than looking at rubbish dropped in the streets
as for rubbish dropped on beaches its more like buried in the sand until the tide comes in to release it from the sand, often used to see people putting wrappers inside bottles then dig hole in sand and cover them....out of sight out of mind they think
|
|
<< ... as for rubbish dropped on beaches its more like buried in the sand until the tide comes in to release it from the sand >>
When the Victorians developed the habit of going to the seaside (helped by the railway companies) it was partly to get fresh(er) air and relieve the unpleasantness of city living. These days it can be better to avoid the beaches and take to the hills, or return to one's own garden, which can be an oasis of cleanliness and tranquillity by comparison :-)
|
|
The hills of Snowdonia have become like a public toilet as they become ever more popular. Our friend the motor car is largely responsible given the freedom of movement they provide. As with so many places there are not enough car parks and public toilets. Just how do you provide toilets in the middle of nowhere and few day trippers carry spades!
|
The hills of Snowdonia have become like a public toilet as they become ever more popular. Our friend the motor car is largely responsible given the freedom of movement they provide. As with so many places there are not enough car parks and public toilets. Just how do you provide toilets in the middle of nowhere and few day trippers carry spades!
Composting toilets. They are used successfully in other parts of the world but are very uncommon here, probably due to our national aversion to managing or maintaining anything.
|
|
Used a few of those toilets in Alberta national parks a few years ago
It was a particularly hot summer.
I'm gagging just thinking about entering them.
All over the parks we visited so they must have been successful.
|
|
|
|
<< ... probably due to our national aversion to managing or maintaining anything. >>
It's not an aversion (etc). It's just someone else's job, perhaps an illegal immigrant's ? That's one reason for litter in the street - assuming the discarders even consider that.
|
|
|
|
|
Separating our sewers from the rain discharge would help massively as our sewer system is ancient but the cost would be colossal. I recall an estimated figure of about £700bn and that was before the pandemic so you can probably add 20% on for inflation and another 30% because all these large projects go over budget.
I think it needs to be done though however long and costly it is, walking over smelling rainwater drains (and cars parked over them smell terrible) during hot weather, and the problem is getting worse, which also happens in some high street drains, is worse than looking at rubbish dropped in the streets
AFAIK roadside drains for rainwater incorporate a u-bend trap to block sewer gases/smells, just like domestic W.C.s, so smells are from what has been put in from above.
|
|
AFAIK roadside drains for rainwater incorporate a u-bend trap to block sewer gases/smells, just like domestic W.C.s, so smells are from what has been put in from above.
So you've not heard of sewers overflowing from surface water overwhelming the sewers and drains during heavy rain, leaving sewage in the drains, unless the U bend has a one way valve on it water can back up through the U bend, reason why some houses get flooded
|
|
|
|
|
Separating our sewers from the rain discharge would help massively as our sewer system is ancient but the cost would be colossal. I recall an estimated figure of about £700bn and that was before the pandemic so you can probably add 20% on for inflation and another 30% because all these large projects go over budget.
With costs like that you can see why it's not happening quickly
|
Separating our sewers from the rain discharge would help massively as our sewer system is ancient but the cost would be colossal. I recall an estimated figure of about £700bn and that was before the pandemic so you can probably add 20% on for inflation and another 30% because all these large projects go over budget.
With costs like that you can see why it's not happening quickly
Yes, the moneys better going to footballers kicking a ball around a field. Sewage isn't important until people start dying. Like London 1858. They used to spread it on the fields as fertiliser. Now farmers pay huge amounts of money buying chemical fertliser that ends up being washed into the waterways choking them. And what a waste of treated water washing sewage away.
|
Separating our sewers from the rain discharge would help massively as our sewer system is ancient but the cost would be colossal. I recall an estimated figure of about £700bn and that was before the pandemic so you can probably add 20% on for inflation and another 30% because all these large projects go over budget.
With costs like that you can see why it's not happening quickly
Yes, the moneys better going to footballers kicking a ball around a field. Sewage isn't important until people start dying. Like London 1858. They used to spread it on the fields as fertiliser. Now farmers pay huge amounts of money buying chemical fertliser that ends up being washed into the waterways choking them. And what a waste of treated water washing sewage away.
Like with so much in our society, nothing gets done unless and until those in positions of power or a very large chunk of society (I'd suspect more towards the former nowadays) gets badly and directly affected by something.
Even at the lowest, local level - like I volunteer on a residents commitee on my own (private) housing development - other resident directors and the management company we employ rarely want to do the work and resolve long-standing issues until the proverbial hits the fan.
Trying to be proactive is almost impossible, because so few people think of the long term benefits (whether financial or not) and are too lazy to put the effort into the work required.
Given it gets worse and worse the further you go up the chain in terms of responsibility at council, regional, governmental and international level, well...
Many such issues are discussed in my old industry of Building Services as well as Civil Engineering and staff like myself just get fed up because no-one above wants to know.
You think of what's happened in the US with that very serious chemical spill/burn-off after that derailment - the local authorities are tearing their hair out at the lack of an appropriate response from the federal government.
Now whilst I suspect part of it is because of politics, a lot of it is still 'the system', which is geared (here too) to sweeping problems under the carpet and only doing the minimum to in any way address issues, even when the you-know-what hits the fan. To many vested interests in keeping the status quo, both from a political, control and financial standpoint.
It's why I think that public enquiries and (state/national/Royal) commissions are mostly a complete waste of time and money, especially in the last 30 years.
|
|
""It's why I think that public enquiries and (state/national/Royal) commissions are mostly a complete waste of time and money, especially in the last 30 years."
All good points and they all have a ring of truth. What is the well known phrase bandied about when things go wrong ""lessons will be learnt"" fat chance. I think you are right hardly anyone has any work ethic, content to sit back and take the pay check. We mentioned WFH a few days back yes some do put in a fair day probably more in the private sector than others There are some private employers experimenting with a 4 day week apparently with some success so it would seem that the work is done in 4 so the question is were they coasting on day 5?
If we cannot sort pollution and for that matter litter which does great damage all over the world to the environment what is the point of carbon zero. the plant Earth will be dead long before we get there. Pollution and litter are causing more damage to wildlife and us than a bit of carbon which trees and plants need in any case.
In the news again is the prospect of sea level rising. In the UK swathes of low lying coastline is going to get lost by 2050 apparently due to climate change. I don't think we can get to zero carbon by then but what is the point nobody else is really trying are they? I see no sea defences being talked about even for the capitol. If you are still around by then time to get your wellies out.
|
|
Carbon is pollution
|
Carbon is pollution
Yes, So is breathing. There are 8billion humans on the planet
|
|
Correct. My point is that you say that sorting out pollution is more important than all this trivia with carbon as if they're different things.
|
|
|
Carbon is pollution
Yes, So is breathing. There are 8billion humans on the planet
And all those people cause huge amounts of pollution
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think we can get to zero carbon by then but what is the point, nobody else is really trying are they?
That is the time-honoured argument that says 'well I won't if you don't go first'. And it is the most likely scenario. Fundamental problem, which will certainly not be solved by human effort, is global population, which is already too large. Nature may take control, and possibly in the not too distant future. We may worry about our grandchildren, but I do wonder who they will worry about in their turn.
|
|
|
|
In the news again is the prospect of sea level rising. In the UK swathes of low lying coastline is going to get lost by 2050 apparently due to climate change. I don't think we can get to zero carbon by then
its been doing that for decades so its nothing new, look at the Isle of Wight, the coast line has been collapsing into the sea for years, and climate change is always happening so no change there we just have to do our best to protect what life and coast we can
as for 0 carbon we will never get there, the planet is changing faster than we can keep up with and again we have to get used to the changes as and when they happen! thats life....
|
In the news again is the prospect of sea level rising. In the UK swathes of low lying coastline is going to get lost by 2050 apparently due to climate change. I don't think we can get to zero carbon by then
its been doing that for decades so its nothing new, look at the Isle of Wight, the coast line has been collapsing into the sea for years, and climate change is always happening so no change there we just have to do our best to protect what life and coast we can
as for 0 carbon we will never get there, the planet is changing faster than we can keep up with and again we have to get used to the changes as and when they happen! thats life....
It's true that climate changes has always happened - it's just happening a lot swifter than it should due to human intervention which is why things need to change. Just saying get used to it won't help millions of people being made homeless.
|
|
it's just happening a lot swifter than it should due to human intervention
If we knew that for a fact?, I still doubt we can do much about it as nature always corrects our mistakes, unless we interfere with nature which could have rather worse effects, but I do wonder if going all electric could create unknown problems worse than we currently have... Just saying
|
<< it's just happening a lot swifter than it should due to human intervention >>
If we knew that for a fact?,
The only way we might 'know it for a fact' is with access to a long-range time machine. But the clear deductions from any graphical picture of global temp or atmospheric CO2 are convincing. It began slowly with the Industrial Revolution then accelerated after WW2. My finger of suspicion points at the rapid growth of air travel, pumping out CO2 6 miles up, where vegetation can't reach to gobble it up.
|
it's just happening a lot swifter than it should due to human intervention
If we knew that for a fact?, I still doubt we can do much about it as nature always corrects our mistakes, unless we interfere with nature which could have rather worse effects, but I do wonder if going all electric could create unknown problems worse than we currently have... Just saying
But we are interfering with nature. The Brazilian rainforest is being cut down at an alarming rate. The oceans are warming which reduces their ability to absorb CO2. We're still pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and it doesn't look like that'll diminish soon.
|
I still doubt we can do much about it as nature always corrects our mistakes, unless we interfere with nature which could have rather worse effects,
Nature seeks to find an equilibrium irrespective of what happens to the environment, whether caused by us (homo sapiens) or natural events (meteor strikes, sun spots, tsunami etc.
Nature doesn't care about us - humanity has the status of all other things on the planet - trees, rivers, mountains, cow dung etc.
The risk is that as nature finds a new equilibrium, humanity becomes a casualty.
How it happens and the timing may be uncertain - but I have more confidence in a scientific consensus reached by some of the best brains on the planet than the less well informed.
I am not suggesting you are 100% wrong - just that complacency, possibly driven by a lack of knowledge and an attachment to the status quo may be misplaced.
|
|
I am not suggesting you are 100% wrong - just that complacency, possibly driven by a lack of knowledge and an attachment to the status quo may be misplaced.
It doesn`t matter, my comments are purely my thoughts anyway.
but I have more confidence in a scientific consensus reached by some of the best brains on the planet than the less well informed.
Good for you
|
"How it happens and the timing may be uncertain - but I have more confidence in a scientific consensus reached by some of the best brains on the planet than the less well informed"
There is no such thing as a consensus in proper science.
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had"
Michael Crichton at CalTec lecture 2003
|
"How it happens and the timing may be uncertain - but I have more confidence in a scientific consensus reached by some of the best brains on the planet than the less well informed" There is no such thing as a consensus in proper science. "I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had" Michael Crichton at CalTec lecture 2003
Yep. Consensus is a term used in political circles and until recently, was not used in science. Amazing how immediately after the politicalisation of science about 25 years ago, 'consensus' became the norm - often with zero effort to bother or adeqautely checking the 'work' of those they now 'believe in'.
Sounds to me that science is back - ideologically at least - as it was before the likes of Galileo was imprisoned by the Inquisition for deigning to prove that the Earth revolved around the sun and (with others) asking pertinent questions about the scientific orthodoxy of the day.
If any and all dissenting opinions are both dismissed and those giving them not just portrayed as nutty, ists and phobes, but actively censored, censured and even ruined for either expressing a divergance opinion or just asking questions or pointing out errors / flaws in supposedly 'settled' science, what does it say about society today when many - even a majority, have no problem with following the methods of some of the most despicable regimes, organisations and people in history?
|
|
|
In the news again is the prospect of sea level rising. In the UK swathes of low lying coastline is going to get lost by 2050 apparently due to climate change. I don't think we can get to zero carbon by then
its been doing that for decades so its nothing new, look at the Isle of Wight, the coast line has been collapsing into the sea for years, and climate change is always happening so no change there we just have to do our best to protect what life and coast we can
as for 0 carbon we will never get there, the planet is changing faster than we can keep up with and again we have to get used to the changes as and when they happen! thats life....
Amazing how with all those seas predicte to rise and cover coastal / low-lying areas within the next few deacdes that those from the great and good who want to penalise us to benefit them are still living in / buying up properties in such areas in droves.
You're completely right about zero carbon, and so many people easily get confused between 'net zero' (which is hard enough, especially now) and actual zero, which is impossible without returning the world to a pre-stone-age standing (i.e. humans have no access to any manufactured materials or fire).
The closest we'd ever get is if we 'built' a Dyson sphere around the sun, which is essentially an impossible feat given the scale of that endeavour.
Minimising the impact of any environmental change in a reasonable way without impoverishing those living today and future generations and adaptation to mitigate the effects of changes is the only real way we can continue. Net zero is something for the very long term (100s of years away), not 2030 / 2050, because all it would do is return 90% of the population back to serfdom.
There are many ways we can do far more to protect our environment, as I've stated before, unfortunately most of those mean that the already rich and powerful will not be getting more so (quite the opposite), which is why they are not followed through by those running the Show.
|
|
An interesting look inside the Thames Tideway Tunnel on the BBC today. This is what was required to get all the old combined sewers in London to discharge to a sweater works during a storm rather than just dumping it into the Thames.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-65091803
|
|
I wonder how much pollution and carbon was released just building that tunnel. Building things and just doing modern human things is may be what is causing climate change. It is on going at a scale that is too big to comprehend and increasing. Humans are the only species on Earth who cannot live without building something which is damaging to the natural world and we appear t be going downhill in this respect for all the advances in technology since the caveman.
|
I wonder how much pollution and carbon was released just building that tunnel. Building things and just doing modern human things is may be what is causing climate change. It is on going at a scale that is too big to comprehend and increasing.
Are you saying the pollution etc were too much for the gain from the completed project?
|
I wonder how much pollution and carbon was released just building that tunnel. Building things and just doing modern human things is may be what is causing climate change. It is on going at a scale that is too big to comprehend and increasing.
Are you saying the pollution etc were too much for the gain from the completed project?
NO just illustrating what humans are doing on an increasing scale that might ultimately be unsustainable.
|
I wonder how much pollution and carbon was released just building that tunnel. Building things and just doing modern human things is may be what is causing climate change. It is on going at a scale that is too big to comprehend and increasing. Humans are the only species on Earth who cannot live without building something which is damaging to the natural world and we appear t be going downhill in this respect for all the advances in technology since the caveman.
Is building this not preventing damage to the natural world though? It will stop raw sweage ending up in the Thamses and polluting it.
You can't have a world like we have now and stop building - but you can try and so things in a better way. You need to find a balance rather than just doing the same as you awlasy have or not doinging anything.
|
I wonder how much pollution and carbon was released just building that tunnel. Building things and just doing modern human things is may be what is causing climate change. It is on going at a scale that is too big to comprehend and increasing. Humans are the only species on Earth who cannot live without building something which is damaging to the natural world and we appear t be going downhill in this respect for all the advances in technology since the caveman.
Is building this not preventing damage to the natural world though? It will stop raw sweage ending up in the Thamses and polluting it.
You can't have a world like we have now and stop building - but you can try and so things in a better way. You need to find a balance rather than just doing the same as you awlasy have or not doinging anything.
This is only one project and a necessary one but it does illustrate the sheer size of what humans are capable of building. In the Saudi Arabia desert there is an whole new mega city being built which is on a scale never seen before costing some £500billion. At the same time the UK the country has an energy crisis and ""worried"" about its carbon footprint
|
I wonder how much pollution and carbon was released just building that tunnel. Building things and just doing modern human things is may be what is causing climate change. It is on going at a scale that is too big to comprehend and increasing. Humans are the only species on Earth who cannot live without building something which is damaging to the natural world and we appear t be going downhill in this respect for all the advances in technology since the caveman.
Is building this not preventing damage to the natural world though? It will stop raw sweage ending up in the Thamses and polluting it.
You can't have a world like we have now and stop building - but you can try and so things in a better way. You need to find a balance rather than just doing the same as you awlasy have or not doinging anything.
This is only one project and a necessary one but it does illustrate the sheer size of what humans are capable of building. In the Saudi Arabia desert there is an whole new mega city being built which is on a scale never seen before costing some £500billion. At the same time the UK the country has an energy crisis and ""worried"" about its carbon footprint
The Saudis and Emirates have got it all nicely worked out. They're using all that oil money to build massive solar arrays and desalination plants so that they can have free power and water. At the same time, they're massively sponsoring their tourist industry to encourage everyone with money to get into the habit of going there and spending it.
In a few years time, when we're all grubbing around the dirt, the wealthy will be sitting in the sunshine.
|
|
At the end of the 18th century Malthus predicted mass hunger/starvation with a growing population but limits to food production - an effective barrier to further growth. Hindsight is wonderful - he was wrong.
But other concerns have evolved. Climate change is "slow burn" - easily ignored but real nonetheless. Destruction of the natural environment - rain forests, river and coastal pollution, consumption of raw materials etc are more immediate.
Running through all policy has been and continues to be a failure to address population growth. In some cases quite the reverse - China has removed the one child policy, some religions continue to oppose contraception.
Current policies are at best a short term fix. Zero carbon is worthy but not a globally accepted and implementable strategy. Actions to limit global degradation of oceans, rain forest, consumption of limited resources is at best patchy.
As is always the case, the strong, educated, resource rich will come out on top (whatever top looks like). The Saudis appear to have the foresight to address the challenges ahead - we should do likewise using the strengths we have.
Simply accepting an outcome that leaves us "grubbing around in the dirt" is completely negative - an attitude which marks a loser before the fight has even started. I want my children and grandchildren to be winners not losers in an possible global meltdown.
|
Running through all policy has been and continues to be a failure to address population growth. In some cases quite the reverse - China has removed the one child policy, some religions continue to oppose contraception.
China has removed the one child policy but the birth rate has not risen. In fact it has gone down just as it has in most other countries even ones like Brazil. Italy, Japan and Korea are facing declining populations. The only countries with high birthrates are a few in sub Saharan Africa and a couple in the Middle East. Some religions do indeed oppose contraception but the population of those countries are ignoring that and doing as they please.
|
At the end of the 18th century Malthus predicted mass hunger/starvation with a growing population but limits to food production - an effective barrier to further growth. Hindsight is wonderful - he was wrong.
But other concerns have evolved. Climate change is "slow burn" - easily ignored but real nonetheless. Destruction of the natural environment - rain forests, river and coastal pollution, consumption of raw materials etc are more immediate.
Running through all policy has been and continues to be a failure to address population growth. In some cases quite the reverse - China has removed the one child policy, some religions continue to oppose contraception.
Current policies are at best a short term fix. Zero carbon is worthy but not a globally accepted and implementable strategy. Actions to limit global degradation of oceans, rain forest, consumption of limited resources is at best patchy.
As is always the case, the strong, educated, resource rich will come out on top (whatever top looks like). The Saudis appear to have the foresight to address the challenges ahead - we should do likewise using the strengths we have.
Simply accepting an outcome that leaves us "grubbing around in the dirt" is completely negative - an attitude which marks a loser before the fight has even started. I want my children and grandchildren to be winners not losers in an possible global meltdown.
Just to clear up the ambiguity, I agree. My comment was that our policy of sitting around pretending it's not real or we can't do anything isn't going to work. Even if climate change wasn't real, the Arab world is playing a much longer game and is going to outstrip us in every way unless we find ways to progress.
|
|
<< They're using all that oil money to build massive solar arrays and desalination plants so that they can have free power and water. At the same time, they're massively sponsoring their tourist industry to encourage everyone with money to get into the habit of going there and spending it. >>
And how do they do that - they get in a big plane which burns oil and .....
Most of the adaptations being dreamt up to cope with the pollution crisis are to find new ways to continue doing the things we like doing, which have caused the problems in the first place. Those will have different side effects. The biggest cause is an unsustainably large global population, much of it with money to spend.
|
<< They're using all that oil money to build massive solar arrays and desalination plants so that they can have free power and water. At the same time, they're massively sponsoring their tourist industry to encourage everyone with money to get into the habit of going there and spending it. >>
And how do they do that - they get in a big plane which burns oil and .....
Most of the adaptations being dreamt up to cope with the pollution crisis are to find new ways to continue doing the things we like doing, which have caused the problems in the first place. Those will have different side effects. The biggest cause is an unsustainably large global population, much of it with money to spend.
Give it time and everyone with money will just move to Dubai permanently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
