Pyethon's Blog

New cables are needed to connect a new power station at Sellafield to the grid. These would usually be supported on pylons erected across the countryside. However, this project would mean they would have to traverse the Lake District National Park along its south-west coast. The alternative, more expensive way of achieving this would be to bury the cables in the ground at an increased cost of around 450 million pounds. National grid, the company responsible for the project naturally prefers the cheaper solution but no decision has yet been taken and a consultation will be held prior to this. A commercial company cannot be expected to wait an inordinate amount of time for a return on its investment and would push for the cheaper solution. However, if a short-term levy were imposed on electricity bills to cover the extra cost we could have our cake and eat it too. A seventeen-pound hike spread over a few years would pay for it and wouldn’t jeopardise other projects. The proviso of course is that bills would return to normal when the work is completed.

There’s an article in the 17th March 2016 edition of The Craven Herald and Pioneer regarding a pollution incident of a local river. Discharge from a quarry has been blamed for the pollution at Ingleton in Yorkshire. The Environment Agency responded to nine complaints of discolouration of the river Greta and Doe from members of the public. The agency states that there were approximately six kilometres of watercourse visibly affected by the pollution and “There are no known fish or long-term disruption to aquatic life.” They also state, “As the material didn’t appear to settle quickly, impacts of pollution are believed to be short term, with little to no long term deposition of material. Heavy rain overnight on February 29, and the morning of March 1, would have likely removed any remaining deposits.” They are also working with the quarry to determine the exact cause for the discharge and ways to prevent a recurrence.”

This is not good enough: There’s no mention as to what substance was causing the pollution or whether samples had been taken for analysis.

“There are no known fish or long term disruption to aquatic life.” Were tests or monitoring carried out?

“As the material didn’t appear to settle quickly, impacts of pollution are believed to be short term, with little or no long term deposition of material. Did any material settle? Has there been any impact?

Heavy rain overnight on February 29, and the morning of March 1, would have likely removed any remaining deposits.”

This blasé attitude is inappropriate.

It is the duty of the Environment Agency to take these incidents seriously and to report to the public their findings after scientifically determining the nature of the pollutant – not to fob us off with guesswork or wishful thinking.

ANOTHER CASE:

https://www.rt.com/viral/358561-red-river-siberia-norilsk/

POLLUTED PLANET:

https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/klimawandel-klimaschutz-umwelt-1.4520484
This site is in German.

DOES IT HAVE TO HURT?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions