Feargal Sharkey Tests River Don, which fails series of environmental tests

[abbeyedges]

Keir Starmer has made Mr Timpson MP in charge of prisons taking into his experience of employing ex-offenders.

 

He should ask Fergal to take over the Environment Agency and / or OFWAT and start dishing out some effective fines & punishments. 

 

We really should use the skills and experience of people in this country much more than we currently do. 

[Delbow]

On 02/11/2024 at 12:21, peak4 said:

 

Humanity could not exist without water. So why are we destroying our rivers?

 

Shareholder profit is the simple answer. 

[peak4]

23 hours ago, Delbow said:

Shareholder profit is the simple answer. 

Dame Jenny Jones House of Lords  

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2024-11-04/debates/BA40619F-BF2A-41C3-98CA-A0A479C01004/Water(SpecialMeasures)Bill(HL)

It is essential that the Government do not bail out the water companies in such a way that they simply hand money to shareholders and creditors and let them start afresh, behaving in the same way but perhaps with a little more regulation.

Amendment 97 would prohibit this so that the public purse does not underwrite the casino capitalism and financial engineering that has been going on in the water sector.

We have a ridiculous situation where the debt is being traded by hedge funds, which are gambling on water bills going up in future to finance a bailout.

If these companies fail, let us instead bring them into public ownership and democratic control.

The shareholders and creditors took a gamble on greed when the companies used £75 billion since privatisation to pay dividends rather than invest.

Let them take the hit.

 

Amendment 98 would allow the Government to set out how they will bring water companies into public ownership.

The Greens are deeply disappointed that the Government have ruled this out.

I do not understand any sort of ideological addiction to private ownership of a public service such as this, particularly when it is not even a competitive market.

It is a monopoly, and it is time it stopped.

I have heard the Government say that private investment is essential, but it is simple maths that, if we stop paying dividends and debt payments, that frees up 40% of people’s water bills to be invested in fixing the sewerage system and building more reservoirs.

[Delbow]

1 minute ago, peak4 said:

Dame Jenny Jones House of Lords  

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2024-11-04/debates/BA40619F-BF2A-41C3-98CA-A0A479C01004/Water(SpecialMeasures)Bill(HL)

It is essential that the Government do not bail out the water companies in such a way that they simply hand money to shareholders and creditors and let them start afresh, behaving in the same way but perhaps with a little more regulation.

Amendment 97 would prohibit this so that the public purse does not underwrite the casino capitalism and financial engineering that has been going on in the water sector.

We have a ridiculous situation where the debt is being traded by hedge funds, which are gambling on water bills going up in future to finance a bailout.

If these companies fail, let us instead bring them into public ownership and democratic control.

The shareholders and creditors took a gamble on greed when the companies used £75 billion since privatisation to pay dividends rather than invest.

Let them take the hit.

 

Amendment 98 would allow the Government to set out how they will bring water companies into public ownership.

The Greens are deeply disappointed that the Government have ruled this out.

I do not understand any sort of ideological addiction to private ownership of a public service such as this, particularly when it is not even a competitive market.

It is a monopoly, and it is time it stopped.

I have heard the Government say that private investment is essential, but it is simple maths that, if we stop paying dividends and debt payments, that frees up 40% of people’s water bills to be invested in fixing the sewerage system and building more reservoirs.

 

I couldn't agree more with Jenny Jones. It's obscene that they've got into debt by prioritising shareholder dividends and assumed that the British state will just bail them out, either directly or by letting them milk their captive customers - I can see why they think that, because both main parties are so in thrall to corporate interests. Let them go bust and take their assets in the fire sale. Then make the execs swim in the rivers they polluted.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Delbow said:

 

I couldn't agree more with Jenny Jones. It's obscene that they've got into debt by prioritising shareholder dividends and assumed that the British state will just bail them out, either directly or by letting them milk their captive customers - I can see why they think that, because both main parties are so in thrall to corporate interests. Let them go bust and take their assets in the fire sale. Then make the execs swim in the rivers they polluted.

Most of the suits probably can't swim  

 

[Delbow]

3 hours ago, XboxMan2024 said:

Most of the suits probably can't swim  

 

 

Even better

[Tony]

Dirty rivers are a lot like crime. We only care when we hear about it. So if reports go up people suddenly care as if there's a problem that didn't exist before. 

 

The Conservatives brought in legislation so that every river storm overflow in England must to be monitored with sensors so by 2022 100% of outlets were monitored and live data published instead of almost zero under the previous Labour administration. 

 

So now, we know.

 

Of course it can be better but we'll need find a trillion quid to replace the Georgian and Victorian sewage systems under our streets.

[prince al]

Feargal Sharkey definitely got a good heart!

[Prettytom]

7 minutes ago, Tony said:

Dirty rivers are a lot like crime. We only care when we hear about it. So if reports go up people suddenly care as if there's a problem that didn't exist before. 

 

The Conservatives brought in legislation so that every river storm overflow in England must to be monitored with sensors so by 2022 100% of outlets were monitored and live data published instead of almost zero under the previous Labour administration. 

 

So now, we know.

 

Of course it can be better but we'll need find a trillion quid to replace the Georgian and Victorian sewage systems under our streets.

The legislation to monitor storm outflows is excellent. Now that we have the information, it is time to do something with it. 
 

Clean water benefits everyone, clean rivers especially. Discharging sewage into rivers can be stopped. It should be stopped. Maybe not instantly, but a ten year plan would be welcome.

 

The money to upgrade sewers and sewage treatment plants is relatively easy to source too. Water companies currently pay out about one billion pounds per annum in dividends.
 

Looks pretty straightforward to me.

[Tony]

9 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

The legislation to monitor storm outflows is excellent. Now that we have the information, it is time to do something with it. 
 

Clean water benefits everyone, clean rivers especially. Discharging sewage into rivers can be stopped. It should be stopped. Maybe not instantly, but a ten year plan would be welcome.

 

The money to upgrade sewers and sewage treatment plants is relatively easy to source too. Water companies currently pay out about one billion pounds per annum in dividends.
 

Looks pretty straightforward to me.

 

It's not as straightforward as you think. Outflows from modern plants are certainly doable but (for example) where a combined sewage / rainwater system fills up in a storm it overflows into the local river and no amount of hoping will stop it because the 150 year old drains are designed to do exactly that. They need replacing, or underground storage tanks installing, or the sky turning off.

 

Of course progress should be made but it's not as easy, cheap or fast as just wishing it to be. It's a technical and money issue, not a political or market forces issue. It's both VERY technical and VERY expensive. 

Edited November 8 by Tony