Sewage dumping in rivers.

[Oldguy]

Not all bad news. The Severn Trent plant in Finham (Coventry) processes over 115 million litres of dirty water a day. Ferments sewage sludge into methane which is burned to make electricity and the digested sludge is used as agricultural fertilizer. The plant has/had the largest storm water holding lagoon in Europe where ALL storm water from the city is fully treated in the plant The discharged water from the plant is sand filtered before entering the receiving water of the River Sowe.

If people would only flush pee, poo and toilet paper and bin 'other things' then systems in general would work better.

 

[Tim Harrison]

I'm always a little recalcitrant when I read these sort of discussions. Really our environmental problems are just a side effect of one phenomenon, rapid and unchecked human population growth. But it's the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge.

Further, the worlds cultures are essentially materialistic, it's the way they have developed over millennia and that's fundamentally at odds with environmental concerns. Given the choice most folk will place economic interests above those of the environment.

In a post truth era, where emotional response is often considered more influential than objective fact virtue signalling has become the new green currency. Meanwhile, the population continues to grow and the environment continues to degrade with every flush of the toilet.

"All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder - and ultimately impossible - to solve with ever more people."
Sir David Attenborough Population Matters.

 

[Nick potts]

I'm always a little recalcitrant when I read these sort of discussions. Really our environmental problems are just a side effect of one phenomenon, rapid and unchecked human population growth. But it's the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge.

Further, the worlds cultures are essentially materialistic, it's the way they have developed over millennia and that's fundamentally at odds with environmental concerns. Given the choice most folk will place economic interests above those of the environment.

I 100% agree with you on population, but is a very tricky one to solve, how to you stop a population from increasing?

You could try China's take with there 1 child rule (which they have changed to a 2 child policy when faced with an aging and declining population), or incentives etc, but it is definitely a tough one.

It's not our individual consumer choices that make a difference, but our political choices

I don't agree with this, and feel this is part of the problem. When you have people thinking that it is not their choices that make a difference they are unlikely to do anything to change. IMO nothing is going to change without us as individuals changing our habits and priorities

Industry is powered by our demand for more and more stuff for more and more people.

 

[Tim Harrison]

But is a very tricky one to solve, how to you stop a

It’s not tricky in that sense. Like most change of this nature it requires political will and perhaps paradoxically faster economic growth of developing nations. This often leads to the development of progressive societies, that give women more choice. When this occurs two things usually happen. One, the birth rate falls dramatically, there’s no longer the need to have big families as insurance against ill health and old age. And two, women become free to contribute to society in many positive ways that improve the human condition further. Both of which will reduce the negative human impact on the environment.

 

[zozo]

Really our environmental problems are just a side effect of one phenomenon, rapid and unchecked human population growth. But it's the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge.

I'm not so sure about this belief either... All tho could be...

I forgot his name but not so long ago a mathematician stated in square meters of land there actually is enough room on this planet to give everybody a decent space to live. There is more unpopulated space than there is populated space. People are like Ants ants nesting by the millions almost sitting on each others lap. Producing more than they need resulting in trash piles literally higher than the Taj Mahal rotting away. Then when you have more than you need why would you look at trash to find something useful? Meanwhile, at the other end of the world people have about nothing and are starving.

IMHO the Elephant in the room is more likely to be Greed... And those in power able to do something about it are the ignorant ones having more than they can spend and only wanting more and actually they are providing us with the Elephant that is not really there... The Lighting Rod strategy?

Same as a lot now probably tend to think towards "Oh no, not again Conspiracy Theory!?" Which also is the very same created lighting rod strategy. Just think of it, when you are secretly in cahoots with your dad to buy a nice present for your mom but she must not find out, then what are you doing? It is the simplest form of conspiring and it is as old as humanity is... Conspiring Is in human nature and all around us positively as well negatively all day every day. The other elephant in connotative disguise regarding the negative.

I gave such an elephant in a previous reply... About some corrupt government employee or even maybe a minister which remains to be seen. Giving an Asphalt producer an official permit to dump toxic waste in a public nature reserve. And if this ain't a conspiracy then I do not know what is and what is not. Then if you break all this down to a bottom line then to what conclusion can one come? My conclusion is, we have people working in the government and high placed economic contractors playing with our lives and don't give a sh|t about Public Health. All they care about is quick profit and greed. After all less profit is a loss...

Then in this very same government, we have a school teacher that in mysterious ways became Minister of Public Health propagating a hastily developed vaccine with the statement if you don't want this vaccine you're a public health hazard?

What to believe?

 

[Tim Harrison]

You ain’t wrong Marcel. Although neither unsustainable popn. growth nor allowing the wealth of the planet to be concentrated in the hands of the one percent is desirable. Personally, I’m a fan of the Nordic Model. Although, like any system it’s not without its environmental challenges.

 

[Nick potts]

I'm not so sure about this belief either... All tho could be...

I forgot his name but not so long ago a mathematician stated in square meters of land there actually is enough room on this planet to give everybody a decent space to live.

Space isn't so much the issue, it's more about the amount of resources we use and therefor waste we create, a lot of which is on totally luxury and throw away items.

We already produce enough food to feed 1.5x the global population according to the UN, fortunately the majority goes to feed animals or biofuels rather than help poor countries become the kind of places Tim mentions above.
But as you say, it all comes down to money and greed in the end.

It’s not tricky in that sense. Like most change of this nature it requires political will and perhaps paradoxically faster economic growth of developing nations. This often leads to the development of progressive societies, that give women more choice. When this occurs two things usually happen. One, the birth rate falls dramatically, there’s no longer the need to have big families as insurance against ill health and old age, and two, women become free to contribute to society in many positive ways that improve the human condition further. Both of which will reduce the negative human impact on the environment.

I did read a few interesting articles on this a while back, it's all very interesting and the main point was as you said, in many developed countries with equal rights etc, population growth had slowed or levelled out where as it was still growing in developing nations.

 

[zozo]

A question...

What are you willing to give (away) to make all these issues go away?

Look around you and look at what you actually don't really need... And think about why do you actually have it?

I guess you are the same as me... Lucky to be born where you are born and have what you have...

 

[shangman]

I don't agree with this, and feel this is part of the problem. When you have people thinking that it is not their choices that make a difference they are unlikely to do anything to change. IMO nothing is going to change without us as individuals changing our habits and priorities

Industry is powered by our demand for more and more stuff for more and more people.

I think I wrote this a bit wrong (sorry dyspraxic/dyslexic with disorganised thoughts), what you said isn't disagreeing with my sentiment, you missed off a bit which clarified "our choices of who to work for and how to work, our voices, what we do with our lives", I didn't say all choices, but specifically CONSUMER choices, what we buy isn't our whole lives. I mentioned it because I've been reading a lot about climate change and what we as people can do about it lately so was maybe giving too much of an elaboration which isn't needed here.

Another part of what I mean is though, that we as individual consumers in the supply/demand don't matter nearly as much as we think compared to industry, it simply isn't a 50/50 split - the drivers of climate change are overwhelmingly big industry + the governments who turn a blind eye. This shift of blame is a documented tactic of the oil industry to pin climate change on us "the people", rather than them, and now a lot of us feel really guilty and apathetic, when we should be angry that they destroyed it, and turn that angry into legislative action. <When exon mobile realised in the 1970s that this would happen, they had the ability to stop and change to developing renewable energy, and spread the news of what climate change could become. They didn't stop, and hid the evidence so they could carry on.> Supply and demand are extremely wonky when industries are so large - look at the way world-wide agriculture relies on subsidies, or the way that OPEC control oil. Or think of fashion, the industry I am part of, where every big fast fashion company, and many luxury ones often too, massively overproduce clothes (which incidentally are dyed with chemicals which are released into waterways completely eradicating any life in and around them), not because they will sell, but because the price is cheaper if you produce as many as possible, then they burn or bury the extra. So basically, let's regulate the hell out of them all!

I definitely think there is something in the overpopulation theory, we are just like all organisms that go through population booms and busts, consuming all resources until we can't anymore and the population naturally shrinks... but idk, we're the first animals to understand that we're doing it in real time, and we have paths to do something about it, it would be nice if we could at least attempt to be better together.

 

[Tim Harrison]

The debate regarding climate change is somewhat polarised. Neither extreme is particularly helpful. The media have fuelled a global hysteria fanning the flames of moral panic; fear is a marketable commodity, and a form of control. Something many scientists and commentators and governments are very aware of.

Apocalyptic claims about climate change are almost certainly wrong. And that’s perhaps the crux of the biggest paradox. If the trillions of dollars spent on researching and inventing new and interesting ways of combating climate change where used to tackle social inequality, poverty, war, famine, oppression. etc, popn. growth would decline and our environmental problems would all become far easier to solve.

Either way don’t panic, everything will be fine, ‘cause there’s a poodle in Wandsworth that can tap dance...

 

[John q]

Really interesting, thought provoking discussion, to all involved.

question...

What are you willing to give (away) to make all these issues go away?

For me this pretty much sums up the whole thread, be it waterway pollution or climate change.

A few summers ago when Greta was doing her thing I had some rather in depth discussions with my eldest daughter and I asked her what she was prepared to give up to help facilitate the change she craved.
Was she prepared to give up the convinient wipes that removed her make up, which coincidentally were probably made of or produced using various toxic chemicals, could she manage without the latest iPhone, those snasy Nike trainers, the laptop, those colourful clothes in the wardrobe, the car sat on the drive, how about stay cations in England rather than that week in ibiza? The answer I got back was "why, it won't change anything"

Well if we the people want change, it is believe it or not within our grasp, but we really have to want it, and be prepared to make personal sacrifices to achieve it.
The oil companies only supply oil because we the people consume it.
The plastic companies only produce plastic because we the people demand it.
The earth is mined for its precious minerals because you guessed it "we the people" want it.

I don't blame the multinational companies or the politicians for the mess we're in, I blame ourselves and I firmly believe we all have a part to play in fixing it, if that's what we really desire.

I'm unashamedly happy with my lot and won't be walking or cycling the 12 miles to work every day to save the planet.

 

[dsandson]

Interesting discussion. I'm a civil engineer by trade, and do work for water utilities. That has lessened over the last while but that's just a business thing.
I work for a consultancy but see lots of what happens. Many of the thoughts so far have been over population or a lack of respect of nature.

In my experience the utilities do a pretty good job (however we have a publicly owned water company here so perhaps we're luckier than England). Some of the big issues are legacy. These companies have a massive network. In an urban setting these networks are at their core made up of Victorian era pipes. The problem is not necessarily age, but design. As these networks were built to take all the water, including rain water. The problem is that the pipes have to be oversized, and the pumping stations and treatment works struggle to cope with vast swings in flow. Essentially perfectly clean water is mixed with raw sewage. Sounds crazy but the costs to separate out an entire city is well beyond the best funded utility.

Another issue is the nature of treating water. Old techniques were low tech, and often electrify free. But not high quality. Now to meet the ever increasing standards (from the Water Framework Directive - EU regulations which are still in UK law) generally needs more equipment and often lots of electricity. I believe in NI and Scotland the water companies are the largest single users of electricity. But the new plants are quite remarkable.

Some of the discharges are largely to avoid out if sewer flooding (ie. It might run into your business or house). The second could be argued it's to protect the treatment works themselves. They can't flood, or all the non-submersible electrics will try. And that's not sustainable. A works out if action for months will pollute many many times more than a 2 hour spill. Another aspect is there is a land and economic limit on the construction of storage facilities. A finite overall capital budget has to be spent to best enhance the overall network, not just one facility.

That might seem like an odd way of using the sustainability term, but sustainability triangle is defined as environment, social and economic. It can't be justified to trash a hugely expensive asset just to protect a watercourse once. To be fair there's plenty of ways of looking at sustainability, but it really has to be balanced.

You don't get into this business to pollute. And in fact the vast majority of work we'd do is to design or manage upgrades. Just at the weekend I saw an article about a project I worked on a few years ago. Turns out it's been constructed and is operating now. This was a multi million pound project to eliminate out of sewer flooding near an area in a river flood plain. The river authority rightly wouldn't let a new overflow discharge to be created. So storing the water was the only solution. The sewer causing the flooding weren't massive ... Less than a foot diameter. In the end to get the volume of storage a 15m diameter tank had to be sunk 8m into the ground. New pumps and control equipment to return the stored water at a safe rate. A massive job for storing what in the grand scheme of things was not a lot of water.

Just thought the other side of the coin was a useful counter balance.

 

[Nick potts]

I think I wrote this a bit wrong (sorry dyspraxic/dyslexic with disorganised thoughts), what you said isn't disagreeing with my sentiment, you missed off a bit which clarified "our choices of who to work for and how to work, our voices, what we do with our lives", I didn't say all choices, but specifically CONSUMER choices, what we buy isn't our whole lives.

I definitely think there is something in the overpopulation theory, we are just like all organisms that go through population booms and busts, consuming all resources until we can't anymore and the population naturally shrinks... but idk, we're the first animals to understand that we're doing it in real time, and we have paths to do something about it, it would be nice if we could at least attempt to be better together.

I fully agree, big business and industry should be held accountable as well

With regards to population booms and busts. This is how most natural ecosystems work, populations rise until they reach a level that is sustainable, whether that be based on food availability or territory etc.

Humans are the only species that have ever been able to radically alter the environment to suit our needs, food and territory are not really limiting factors in our population growth so we just keep going.

 

[Tim Harrison]

 

[PARAGUAY]

I rather like Sir David Attenboroughs talk with Greta he apologies for what we have left her generation. My 14 years old grandaughter is a great suppoerter of Greta and its all the familys fault. We encourged her to have an interest in the outdoors and the natural world from a toddler She has a fish tank in her room when she stays over. Think l am a big fan of Greta through her. Not many politicans can be trusted on the planet and climate debate.

 

[Wookii]

Really interesting discussion guys - but I think the above Matrix clip pretty much sums up the human condition pretty well, and I think the problem really is the human condition.

We are a net consumer of resources, it is a completely ingrained in the primitive human psychology to want, acquire and consume more, and better, no matter what that is, and no matter the costs (to society, and the environment etc) that do not directly impact on us. It is so deeply part of our culture and mental construct that we simply cannot break away from it in any significant and meaningful way.

It is only when the impact of those costs of consumption impact us directly that we push for change, either societal or technological, to eliminate them. None of us are willing to take the necessarily large steps as individuals to mitigate those societal and environmental costs in advance of their effect on us.

Depressing as it may be, I can't help but think that in the long term, like any successful virus (net consumer of resources), we are ultimately doomed to be the victim of own success . . . it is an inevitability Mr Anderson.

 

[zozo]

The oil companies only supply oil because we the people consume it.
The plastic companies only produce plastic because we the people demand it.
The earth is mined for its precious minerals because you guessed it "we the people" want it.

I don't blame the multinational companies or the politicians for the mess we're in, I blame ourselves and I firmly believe we all have a part to play in fixing it, if that's what we really desire.

Not entirely correct... I don't know your age and I can understand that the generation that never seen it differently believe this is how it needs to be because people demand it and that we kinda living a self fulfilling prophecy...

But those who can look 40 years back in time, to the days that each neighbourhood had its own grocery store, butcher and countless other little stores each providing the neighbourhood with its specific expertise, hardware, toys, household products name it, we had it. If you were missing one screw, there was always a shop to find in a 5-mile radius to buy that one needed screw. There were very few plastic bags and boxes but they had paper bags if you happen to forget your own bag. The butcher, fruits and vegetable shop, the snack bar and the grocery store wrapped your order into old newspapers. The old day supermarket had an in-house real-time Butcher and not a cooler full of plastic packet ready-cut meat.

There was nobody in the world yelling we want it plastic... I remember everybody happy and a lot of people turned a good sandwich with their small shops all over the place.

Then the big companies came raging a price war with the small shop owners and competing them all to damnation. And by the time the big supermarket and hardware companies etc. had achieved their desired monopoly, the packaging industry started making millions as well.

About one thing I agree, laziness is a natural-born habit for all living organisms thus also for us... Our society thrives on the rather lazy than tired concept. And this is a very convenient human feature for creating monopolies.

But I rather believe it's a matter of education and upbringing with an artificially created demand and the people unknowingly and conveniently got slowly sucked into an abyss that knows no turning back. Too many people have too much than they really need...

@Tim Harrison I actually like your Elephant very much... Thinking of it i see them all over the place and we seem to have a complete herd we don't see.

 

[John q]

Haha yes I remember the good old days, I'm almost 50.

Agree with all your points about the big companies forcing out the little guys, but again this is capitalism and people have the option to shop local, but they choose not to.

 

[zozo]

people have the option to shop local, but they choose not to

That's indeed the best politically correct answer... We present you an XXXL shop and you may choose where to go.

Same as with the food industry, nobody is forcing you to eat the good tasting greasy crap we hold in front of your nose.
Thus being healthy is your own choice and the food industry washes its hands in innocence...

 

[Tim Harrison]

We are a net consumer of resources, it is a completely ingrained in the primitive human psychology to want, acquire and consume more, and better, no matter what that is, and no matter the costs (to society, and the environment etc) that do not directly impact on us. It is so deeply part of our culture and mental construct that we simply cannot break away from it in any significant and meaningful way.

I think a condition of becoming a politician should be to have several shaman guided Ayahuasca experiences. It might shift their perception from the material to the spiritual, and then they may pay more attention to what's really important 😁🌳🌿