The EU have been trying to ban neonicotinoids for some time. The UK voted against it. This is mentioned in the comments below

I think he means it will get worse when we leave EU

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

> 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-...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-regu...

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.

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.

> 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.

It may be phrased infelicitously, but I think thinking more-or-less any other good is worth more counts as anti-environmental, given that politics is an endless series of tradeoffs.

I mean, in the same sense that socialists are often seen as anti-business. It's not so much that they dislike businesses per se (most of us in the social democratic tradition see markets and those who operate in them as an important source of wealth and innovation) but that, given a choice, they would direct government spending to more-or-less anything other than making business owners richer.

That's a very rational analysis, but I think a factor that is more relevant to politics is people's strong gut reaction to issues. Some people reflexively oppose all efforts to protect the environment. I'm very liberal, so I have a lot of friends who reflexively support all government regulation of business, without bothering to know the specifics. I would call them anti-business. Or if you tell someone there was a police shooting last night and the first thing they say is "Fucking cops!" instead of "What happened?" then I think you could call them anti-police.

Maybe if you ask them rationally what their opinion is, it will come out pretty balanced, but that standard glosses over a lot of deeply rooted bias.

I think the real issue is that people think they are pro-environment, and so think that people they disagree with on related issues must surely then be the opposite - anti-environment. I think it’s a sad indication of how polarised people think things are and how little they try to understand and be reasonable.

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 which really is pollution for its own sake.

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.

> 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.

There is a rather good summary of the settled science here:

http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/2016/05/17/report/

You're right, not anti-environment just completely uncaring provided their supporters/patrons make more profits.

Your argument is like saying if I sit and watch my friend beat you up, not intervening because he promised me a few quid, then I'm blameless and not "anti" you in any way.

You're quibbling over semantics whilst we're trying to shine light on the destruction of irreplaceable natural resources, and pollution of our environment that will harm future generations.

If you can show Tories will preference the environment over business interests [of their donors, members] then please do so; this present argument is unhelpful.

> You're quibbling over semantics

I never understand what people mean by this criticism. I'm debating people based on the words they use and what they mean by using those words... and that's a bad thing? What else you would like me to debate them on instead? Their syntax and grammar?

And my local Conservative councillors seems to Tweet mainly about school funding and how important is is to preserve the green belt for the sake of the environment, so there you go.

Complaining about "quibbling over semantics" is to say your arguing about how the issue is expressed rather than the substantive parts of the issue.

Many people, such as myself, want positive action to protect the environment from damage to essential ecosystems, want preservation of green spaces, protection of native species, and such like.

Saying "the videos aren't making policies to actively harm the environment and do they're not anti-environment"is to entirely miss the substance of the argument which is that they're not doing enough to protect it and are seemingly ignoring environmental issues when profits can be made.

One often finds councillors at odds with the party as they focus much more on local issues. Conservative councillors in rural areas will be inclined to protect green belt, counter village in-fill developments, oppose fracking, etc, despite these being things the Tories as a party support (because: profits).

Tories are strong on rhetoric wrt green belt, just weak on protection.

The word "environment" has become ridiculously overused and can seemingly refer to a whole grab bag of different issues. And sometimes it is accompanied by an effort to depoliticise contraversial issues. So that we don't talk about them and conform to the "correct" line. This just alienates people who could have been supportive on particular single issues. As people learn more about these issues they will hopefully have a more nuanced understanding and opinions.

Americans who enjoy "rolling coal" come to mind.

That's anti-environmentalism. It literally says so in the title. That's not the same thing as anti-environment. They're against environmentalist activists.

> Environmentalism, as a movement, is an alternative world view and a substitute for Christianity.

They aren't against the environment itself. I'm sure they don't particularly care about it, but they don't hate the environment for the sake of it as far as I can see.

The article implies this is pretty much a worldwide problem and doesn't say what other countries are blighted, bar a strong hint at the Netherlands (also in the EU)?

Did you even read the article?

> EU vote to extend the ban to all outdoor uses is expected soon.

From the HN guidelines:

Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."

Did you? The runoff still comes out of greenhouses where the insecticide will be allowed to be used after the ban. What the article implies is the ban will have little effect & advocates a total ban. Commercial interests won.

> The proposed EU ban would still allow neonicotinoids to be used in greenhouses and as a flea treatment for pets. A new Greenpeace study suggests neonicotinoids are frequently found in waterways close to greenhouses where they have been used.

How's that supposed to happen? I'd suspect drainage would flow vertically into the ground water. Is the water table as high as to level with the river so the pesticide can move sideways?

A river's depth is basically defined by the water table. That's how it stays full of water instead of simply draining into the ground. The first diagram on the Wiki article for water tables shows this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_table

(The first time I heard this was a big "aha" / "of course it works that way, how else would it work" moment for me. Ala XKCD 10000 [0]. Hopefully you're one of today's lucky winners!)

[0] https://www.xkcd.com/1053/

Most ground > flowing water interaction happens at streams, but overall this is correct.

Yep!

A drainage basin or 'catchment area' is any area of land where precipitation collects and drains off into a common outlet, such as into a river, bay, or other body of water. The drainage basin includes all the surface water from rain runoff, snowmelt, and nearby streams that run downslope towards the shared outlet, as well as the groundwater underneath the earth's surface.[1] Drainage basins connect into other drainage basins at lower elevations in a hierarchical pattern, with smaller sub-drainage basins, which in turn drain into another common outlet.[1]

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drainage_basin