(10-24-2021, 06:30 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: [ -> ]I’m so glad we have party in power that genuinely cares about the environment on the eve of hosting COP26.
They will be saving the green belt from developers next…
Perfectly acceptable say over 200 Tory MPs
Really is remarkable the traction this story has got.
The Tories voted down an elephant-trap opposition amendment that essentially demanded the entire renewal of our Victorian infrastructure to stop this happening at a cost in excess of £150 billion. That's without the costs of congestion whilst you dig up every major trunk road in the country to replace the one in 30 year flood diameter sewers.
Don't get me wrong, the water companies ought to be fined more by the toothless regulator so that they get their house in order - but saying MPs think it's "perfectly acceptable" is a typical inane suggestion from you, when as usual the problem is far more complex and multi faceted than befits a high status post for likes.
(10-25-2021, 02:18 PM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ] (10-24-2021, 06:30 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: [ -> ]I’m so glad we have party in power that genuinely cares about the environment on the eve of hosting COP26.
They will be saving the green belt from developers next…
Perfectly acceptable say over 200 Tory MPs
Really is remarkable the traction this story has got.
The Tories voted down an elephant-trap opposition amendment that essentially demanded the entire renewal of our Victorian infrastructure to stop this happening at a cost in excess of £150 billion. That's without the costs of congestion whilst you dig up every major trunk road in the country to replace the one in 30 year flood diameter sewers.
Don't get me wrong, the water companies ought to be fined more by the toothless regulator so that they get their house in order - but saying MPs think it's "perfectly acceptable" is a typical inane suggestion from you, when as usual the problem is far more complex and multi faceted than befits a high status post for likes.
It's more to do with certain water companies not wanting to pay for the chemicals for treatment than infrastructure. There isn't an issue with capacity for treatment at the moment.
(10-25-2021, 02:33 PM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ]It's more to do with certain water companies not wanting to pay for the chemicals for treatment than infrastructure. There isn't an issue with capacity for treatment at the moment.
No, it's not. It is only, and has only ever been about archaic infrastructure.
It was when I worked at Severn Trent in the 1990s, all the years I worked in bringing development land forward, the decade I built sheds and offices and is the same now. Because of the practical and financial constraints of renewing infrastructure developers are required by the planning authorities and the water companies to slow the velocity of effluent into the system.
Used to cost us a fortune.
(10-25-2021, 02:41 PM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2021, 02:33 PM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ]It's more to do with certain water companies not wanting to pay for the chemicals for treatment than infrastructure. There isn't an issue with capacity for treatment at the moment.
No, it's not. It is only, and has only ever been about archaic infrastructure.
It was when I worked at Severn Trent in the 1990s, all the years I worked in bringing development land forward, the decade I built sheds and offices and is the same now. Because of the practical and financial constraints of renewing infrastructure developers are required by the planning authorities and the water companies to slow the velocity of effluent into the system.
Used to cost us a fortune.
Either it's acceptable or it's not acceptable there isn't really a halfway house with dumping raw sewage into rivers and the sea to the extent that is permissible if this legislation goes through. Water Companies have to plough those profits back into their infrastructure, rather than into the pockets of their shareholders. Water imo should never have been privatised for profit in the first place, what incentive is there to improve the situation if this legislation is passed? You can't kick the can down the road, or float the poop down the river forever.
You cannot have a 'green agenda/ economy' and yet at best say, well it's going to cost too much to do anything significant about the sewage problem. That's essentially what you're saying.
(10-25-2021, 02:41 PM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2021, 02:33 PM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ]It's more to do with certain water companies not wanting to pay for the chemicals for treatment than infrastructure. There isn't an issue with capacity for treatment at the moment.
No, it's not. It is only, and has only ever been about archaic infrastructure.
It was when I worked at Severn Trent in the 1990s, all the years I worked in bringing development land forward, the decade I built sheds and offices and is the same now. Because of the practical and financial constraints of renewing infrastructure developers are required by the planning authorities and the water companies to slow the velocity of effluent into the system.
Used to cost us a fortune.
Yes it is, this recent dumping has coincided with the EA granting a waiver on treatment last month due to the prices for obtaining chemicals going up.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...l-shortage
Infrastructure capacity and age is a longstanding issue but the recent spate of release hasn't been due to a surge in demand constraining flow. It's because the water companies are being cheapskates.
(10-25-2021, 04:49 PM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2021, 02:41 PM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2021, 02:33 PM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ]It's more to do with certain water companies not wanting to pay for the chemicals for treatment than infrastructure. There isn't an issue with capacity for treatment at the moment.
No, it's not. It is only, and has only ever been about archaic infrastructure.
It was when I worked at Severn Trent in the 1990s, all the years I worked in bringing development land forward, the decade I built sheds and offices and is the same now. Because of the practical and financial constraints of renewing infrastructure developers are required by the planning authorities and the water companies to slow the velocity of effluent into the system.
Used to cost us a fortune.
Yes it is, this recent dumping has coincided with the EA granting a waiver on treatment last month due to the prices for obtaining chemicals going up.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...l-shortage
Infrastructure capacity and age is a longstanding issue but the recent spate of release hasn't been due to a surge in demand constraining flow. It's because the water companies are being cheapskates.
No, that is not the issue which was Voted upon. Which is the entire thrust of Leftist faux outrage. Here's the details, also FAO Dekka:
https://capx.co/beware-of-the-sewage-ema...-websites/
(10-25-2021, 05:06 PM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2021, 04:49 PM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2021, 02:41 PM)Protheroe Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2021, 02:33 PM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ]It's more to do with certain water companies not wanting to pay for the chemicals for treatment than infrastructure. There isn't an issue with capacity for treatment at the moment.
No, it's not. It is only, and has only ever been about archaic infrastructure.
It was when I worked at Severn Trent in the 1990s, all the years I worked in bringing development land forward, the decade I built sheds and offices and is the same now. Because of the practical and financial constraints of renewing infrastructure developers are required by the planning authorities and the water companies to slow the velocity of effluent into the system.
Used to cost us a fortune.
Yes it is, this recent dumping has coincided with the EA granting a waiver on treatment last month due to the prices for obtaining chemicals going up.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...l-shortage
Infrastructure capacity and age is a longstanding issue but the recent spate of release hasn't been due to a surge in demand constraining flow. It's because the water companies are being cheapskates.
No, that is not the issue which was Voted upon. Which is the entire thrust of Leftist faux outrage. Here's the details, also FAO Dekka:
https://capx.co/beware-of-the-sewage-ema...-websites/
That blog post has nothing to do with my point about what is the root cause of the recent discharges of sewage nor does it mention the waiver that I referred to.
Mind you I wasn't expecting much balance or nuance from the blog of the CPS. Did find the tone quite funny though given that they're complaining about the "Left" as one-eyed while writing from the perspective of a cyclops.