6 ms·

That's speculative though isn't it? The rules could be better outside of the EU if equivalence is used (and judged from statements this week) and the EU standar

That's speculative though isn't it? The rules could be better outside of the EU if equivalence is used (and judged from statements this week) and the EU standards would simply be the baseline. 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

tolien 9y ago
You’re right that it’s speculative (the UK will retain the laws created by the directives into UK law as part of the “Great” Repeal Bill so nothing might change) but the UK could have higher standards already - the EU directive sets a minimum requirement, not a maximum. 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.
toyg 9y ago
I’m not sure you’re familiar with the UK situation. 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.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- chrisseaton 9y ago
  > a Tory government that is naturally pro-business and anti-environment 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.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    There are definitely people who are anti-environmentalist, for whatever reason - seeing the environmentalists as on the other side of the culture war. The environment itself is not at issue, just the opposition to those humans who are in favour of environmental protection. Resulting in stupid stunts like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal which really is pollution for its own sake.
    - ptaipale 9y ago
      Or, the opposition to those humans who they perceive are using shoddy claims of being in favour of environmental protection when advocating for other reasons their policies which might in fact be harmful for environment. 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.
      - pjc50 9y ago
        > The scientific consensus is settled 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.
outsideoflife 9y ago
> That's speculative though isn't it? 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-standards-workers-rights-jacob-rees-mogg-a7459336.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-safety-... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-regulations-michael-gove-environment-drugs-a7649041.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-regu...

tolien 9y ago

You’re right that it’s speculative (the UK will retain the laws created by the directives into UK law as part of the “Great” Repeal Bill so nothing might change) but the UK could have higher standards already - the EU directive sets a minimum requirement, not a maximum. 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.

toyg 9y ago

I’m not sure you’re familiar with the UK situation. 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.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
chrisseaton 9y ago
> a Tory government that is naturally pro-business and anti-environment 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.
- pjc50 9y ago
  There are definitely people who are anti-environmentalist, for whatever reason - seeing the environmentalists as on the other side of the culture war. The environment itself is not at issue, just the opposition to those humans who are in favour of environmental protection. Resulting in stupid stunts like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal which really is pollution for its own sake.
  - ptaipale 9y ago
    Or, the opposition to those humans who they perceive are using shoddy claims of being in favour of environmental protection when advocating for other reasons their policies which might in fact be harmful for environment. 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.
    - pjc50 9y ago
      > The scientific consensus is settled 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.

outsideoflife 9y ago

> That's speculative though isn't it? 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-standards-workers-rights-jacob-rees-mogg-a7459336.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-safety-... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-regulations-michael-gove-environment-drugs-a7649041.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-regu...