British water company dumps sewage, claims "no right to swim in the sea"(inews.co.uk)
inews.co.uk
British water company dumps sewage, claims "no right to swim in the sea"
https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/public-no-right-swim-sea-firm-dumped-sewage-2981778
67 comments
The joys of the free market.
The Brits thought the world would line up to trade with a free UK based on the fact that they were…the UK???
I think the line was trade will be fine because we'll be like Singapore. Hasn't really played out very well so far.
They wanted to be Singapore while still being UK and keep doing the same. And no , looks like it has not worked out.
This is tech debt, pure and simple.
https://news.sky.com/story/down-the-drain-what-went-wrong-wi...
The flaws in the sewerage system are fundamental and pervasive. It would be a national multi-generational effort to rebuild it all. It's going to be far cheaper to simply make swimming outdoors illegal and alter insurance guidelines to deny claims for water-borne health issues.
Stuff like this appears in UK newspapers all the time. It's just the think tanks putting controversial ideas out there so that public outrage can be gauged. This then informs government policy going forward.
https://news.sky.com/story/down-the-drain-what-went-wrong-wi...
The flaws in the sewerage system are fundamental and pervasive. It would be a national multi-generational effort to rebuild it all. It's going to be far cheaper to simply make swimming outdoors illegal and alter insurance guidelines to deny claims for water-borne health issues.
Stuff like this appears in UK newspapers all the time. It's just the think tanks putting controversial ideas out there so that public outrage can be gauged. This then informs government policy going forward.
This is what happens when you privatise monopolies. They're not looking at a 100y plan, they're paying shareholders and [unnecessary] c-level positions.
What's surprising is that it lasted 35 years.
What's surprising is that it lasted 35 years.
Worth noting that this dumping is usually done during periods of high rainfall, to avoid sewage backing up through toilets into households. It’s not villains pulling a lever because they’re evil.
The fundamental problem is a lack of investment in increasing the capacity of sewer infrastructure, much of which is Victorian-era.
This is a good paper on the causes and possible resolutions:
https://www.ice.org.uk/media/ecuhx2dc/cso-insights-paper-jul...
(£56bn of investment has been committed, but 10x that would be needed to entirely eliminate CSOs).
The fundamental problem is a lack of investment in increasing the capacity of sewer infrastructure, much of which is Victorian-era.
This is a good paper on the causes and possible resolutions:
https://www.ice.org.uk/media/ecuhx2dc/cso-insights-paper-jul...
(£56bn of investment has been committed, but 10x that would be needed to entirely eliminate CSOs).
No it is pure evil: they opted for dividends over capex for the last 30 years
And we have to give up plastic straws, even those of us who have never littered anywhere in our lives.
What a dumb situation they have got themselves into. They have to defend themselves to win the court case - and by doing so they lose the in the arena of public opinion.
It’s beautiful.
It’s beautiful.
Imagine a world where ‘no legal duty’ was the default mindset for everyone.
And imagine if every nation pumped their shit straight into the ocean?
Poor old UK bosses would have no clean beaches to fly to.
Poor old UK bosses would have no clean beaches to fly to.
Do you have any idea how many sea creatures there are, all of whom are shitting straight into the ocean, constantly?
Around 2 billion metric tons of them.
By contrast, there are only about 60 million tons of human beings.
Handwaving any differences in metabolic rates, the ocean animals are outshitting us by a factor of roughly 30, or, to put it another way, if every human turd in the world went straight into the ocean it would only increase the amount of shit in the ocean by around 3%.
Of course, the overwhelming majority of human waste does not get dumped directly into the oceans, so it's far less than that.
Around 2 billion metric tons of them.
By contrast, there are only about 60 million tons of human beings.
Handwaving any differences in metabolic rates, the ocean animals are outshitting us by a factor of roughly 30, or, to put it another way, if every human turd in the world went straight into the ocean it would only increase the amount of shit in the ocean by around 3%.
Of course, the overwhelming majority of human waste does not get dumped directly into the oceans, so it's far less than that.
Individuals and corporations quit caring about the environment; Which, is why there is sewage and microplastics in the sea and ocean.
There’s been sewage in the seas and oceans for as long as there’s been sewage in proximity to those places. Long before caring for the environment as it’s now understood was even a concept. I’d hazard a guess that on a population density normalized comparison for developed countries there has never been a better time for responsible sewage handling. That’s not to say that there aren’t plenty of problems like this article highlights, just that it probably has not been better in the past. Hopefully the UK courts will hand this lady a decisive win and reinforce the idea that industry does have responsibility.
> There’s been sewage in the seas and oceans for as long as there’s been sewage in proximity to those places.
Oh, far, far longer than that. Everyone is ignoring the fact that fish and other sea creatures also shit in the ocean, and were doing so for billions of years before humans even existed.
Oh, far, far longer than that. Everyone is ignoring the fact that fish and other sea creatures also shit in the ocean, and were doing so for billions of years before humans even existed.
Corps quitting caring about the environment implies they ever did.
They did not until environmental regulations forced them to, and they ignore those regulations every time they think they can get away with it.
And individuals are not much better.
They did not until environmental regulations forced them to, and they ignore those regulations every time they think they can get away with it.
And individuals are not much better.
It’s definitely not new and often nothing is done until it directly affects the “great and the good”
For example nothing was done about the pollution of the river Thames until it got so bad it affected the business of parliament.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink
For example nothing was done about the pollution of the river Thames until it got so bad it affected the business of parliament.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink
It is the default for everyone in power. You’re only surprised because you don’t matter.
Yet another example of why privatisation of utility functions is privatise profits socialise losses. Of course they believe pumping torrents of shit into the sea is OK.
This isn't really a public/private thing. Public orgs can also do bad stuff and also try to cut costs to meet budgets. This is a failure of regulation.
> “The law does not recognise such rights, nor does the law impose a duty on South West Water.”
Disgusting.
I'd like to see that reframed in some similes: I have no legal obligation to save this person in quicksand, so I walked on by _because I am a cunt_.
Disgusting.
I'd like to see that reframed in some similes: I have no legal obligation to save this person in quicksand, so I walked on by _because I am a cunt_.
Literally ’enshitification’
What is the libertarian solution for situations like this?
Presumably "make enough money to buy a private beach or private island."
I thought this situation is the libertarian solution.
Something something market forces...
The business owners have no right to keep people from dumping sewage on them in public
That's probably assault if doesn't have a profit angle. Maybe its expected that everyone should just screw the rest as much as they humanly can without petty crime.
For example, maybe can be a good business to create a company that takes control of all the coffee production/distribution and algorithmically price the cup of coffee to be about 5 quids or %0.1 (whichever is greater)of the monthly income of the customer.
To facilitate this, of course the company will need to collect information like the cars they drive or the house they live so it will require an account with their financials for the individuals displaying wealth.
If that sounds monopolistic, alternatively all the independent coffee shops and coffee sellers can start running the same algorithm and have the exact same effect but technically they won't be price fixing. Why would they do that? Well, it's called catching a whale, they may end up losing the opportunity to make 5 pound of few billionaires but may end up making a fortune of one that really really needs a fix.
For example, maybe can be a good business to create a company that takes control of all the coffee production/distribution and algorithmically price the cup of coffee to be about 5 quids or %0.1 (whichever is greater)of the monthly income of the customer.
To facilitate this, of course the company will need to collect information like the cars they drive or the house they live so it will require an account with their financials for the individuals displaying wealth.
If that sounds monopolistic, alternatively all the independent coffee shops and coffee sellers can start running the same algorithm and have the exact same effect but technically they won't be price fixing. Why would they do that? Well, it's called catching a whale, they may end up losing the opportunity to make 5 pound of few billionaires but may end up making a fortune of one that really really needs a fix.
Guns? Or maybe bears?
Move somewhere else, probably. I have never seen a good answer from Libertarians on environmental issue. Or any tragedy of the commons problem.
What? The solution for the tragedy of the commons is making the common thing private.
There are large green areas in the UK owned by private funds, that are amongs the best preserved in the whole country, or even the whole Europe.
Recent Nobel price Elinor Olstrom studied this theme, and found that in places where the tragedy of the commons is avoided, there are mechanisms that are akin to private property, like a common river being "owned" by a guardian or a private organization that keeps it safe from pollution.
There are large green areas in the UK owned by private funds, that are amongs the best preserved in the whole country, or even the whole Europe.
Recent Nobel price Elinor Olstrom studied this theme, and found that in places where the tragedy of the commons is avoided, there are mechanisms that are akin to private property, like a common river being "owned" by a guardian or a private organization that keeps it safe from pollution.
Shit in their office.
Peninsula House, Rydon Lane, Exeter, Devon, England, EX2 7HR.
They have no right to a shit-free office.
Peninsula House, Rydon Lane, Exeter, Devon, England, EX2 7HR.
They have no right to a shit-free office.
In theory it's Coase Theorem / Coasean bargaining. But even by economics standards, this theoretical result has little real world applicability.
Has the UK become a libertarian paradise lately, without we noticing? This is happening in a social-democracy, to a public good owned by the state. And yet you put the blame on libertarians!
The company dumping sewage is doing it to the sea/rivers, not in private areas like a private swimming pool. Because they will be sued, and lose, if they did. The libertarian solution to this is "make the waters private".
Anecdotally, in the begginings of the industrial revolution, some laundries sued some coal companies in UK for polluting the air and getting the clothes put to dry dirty againg. They won, so the coal companies lobbied the government for permission to emit ashes and smoke freely. The government obliged, allegedly in the name of progress. So when you ask yourself "what is the libertarian solution for this", ask first "is this a problem caused by the state action or inaction?" If the answer is "yes", you already have the answer to your first question.
The company dumping sewage is doing it to the sea/rivers, not in private areas like a private swimming pool. Because they will be sued, and lose, if they did. The libertarian solution to this is "make the waters private".
Anecdotally, in the begginings of the industrial revolution, some laundries sued some coal companies in UK for polluting the air and getting the clothes put to dry dirty againg. They won, so the coal companies lobbied the government for permission to emit ashes and smoke freely. The government obliged, allegedly in the name of progress. So when you ask yourself "what is the libertarian solution for this", ask first "is this a problem caused by the state action or inaction?" If the answer is "yes", you already have the answer to your first question.
I haven't put any blame, just curious how a libertarian solve the issue as a thought experiment. Maybe there's an angle I haven't thought of.
The "make the waters private" doesn't solve the problem of making the waters private if you haven't made the waters private before you want to swim.
If you are going to purchase everything you need to live a life, this will quickly spiral into socialism with capitalist titles because you will need someone to manage all that so you can do stuff you actually care for. Someone will come up with a package that sorts things out for a subscription, you will just have your taxes called monthly subscription fees and the unelected officials will be called managers or CEO or something. Then they will reduce service quality since it would be very hard for you to simply switch to other providers if you are not happy(they will optimize for profit once the growth slows). Then the management will start selling access to you, for example if someone want to do taxi services to subscribers like you, they will have to pay a fee to the management.
Honestly, IMHO this is not even socialism but just communism with different accounting formula and labels.
The "make the waters private" doesn't solve the problem of making the waters private if you haven't made the waters private before you want to swim.
If you are going to purchase everything you need to live a life, this will quickly spiral into socialism with capitalist titles because you will need someone to manage all that so you can do stuff you actually care for. Someone will come up with a package that sorts things out for a subscription, you will just have your taxes called monthly subscription fees and the unelected officials will be called managers or CEO or something. Then they will reduce service quality since it would be very hard for you to simply switch to other providers if you are not happy(they will optimize for profit once the growth slows). Then the management will start selling access to you, for example if someone want to do taxi services to subscribers like you, they will have to pay a fee to the management.
Honestly, IMHO this is not even socialism but just communism with different accounting formula and labels.
What are you on about?
Clean swimming beaches are a public good.
Libertarians don't believe in "public goods."
Clean swimming beaches are a public good.
Libertarians don't believe in "public goods."
You were "curious" and not blaming but quick to downvote. Good way of showing curiosity.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the state allowed the pollution of a public owned area, and now you want a libertarian working solution after the fact. How does that make sense? The libertarian solution is, as I said, make the waters private. The owner will immediately sue the pollutant, to at least stop dumping waste. Reminder that the state is doing nothing at all.
Is anyone dumping thrash in your privately owned house? Why is that? Please, point me a privately owned area were someone who is not the owner openly and freely thrash the place without consequences.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the state allowed the pollution of a public owned area, and now you want a libertarian working solution after the fact. How does that make sense? The libertarian solution is, as I said, make the waters private. The owner will immediately sue the pollutant, to at least stop dumping waste. Reminder that the state is doing nothing at all.
Is anyone dumping thrash in your privately owned house? Why is that? Please, point me a privately owned area were someone who is not the owner openly and freely thrash the place without consequences.
New York City is privately owned.
Before automobiles horse shit was everywhere.
The horse shit issue went away thanks to a change in technology which replaced a visible issue with a less visible one.
Today, as a consequence of industry, the air is polluted, perhaps if someone "owned" the atmosphere?
Today, as a consequence fo fossil fuel usage, the mean tempreture is rising like a slow train wreck - with consequences beginning now and increasing with time.
An efficient system would have addressed and averted these problems when first highlighted in the 1970s rather than allow Koch et al to hire tobacco apologist media companies and think tanks to spred climate FUD for decades.
Early action, early pivoting to renewable development and small more efficient vehicles would have been magnitudes cheaper and more productive in the long term than kicking the can down through time for 50 years while the problem grew and spread to other economies.
Before automobiles horse shit was everywhere.
The horse shit issue went away thanks to a change in technology which replaced a visible issue with a less visible one.
Today, as a consequence of industry, the air is polluted, perhaps if someone "owned" the atmosphere?
Today, as a consequence fo fossil fuel usage, the mean tempreture is rising like a slow train wreck - with consequences beginning now and increasing with time.
An efficient system would have addressed and averted these problems when first highlighted in the 1970s rather than allow Koch et al to hire tobacco apologist media companies and think tanks to spred climate FUD for decades.
Early action, early pivoting to renewable development and small more efficient vehicles would have been magnitudes cheaper and more productive in the long term than kicking the can down through time for 50 years while the problem grew and spread to other economies.
> You were "curious" and not blaming but quick to downvote. Good way of showing curiosity.
I can’t downvote your direct replies to me, just as you can’t downvote mine.
Anyway, since the government screwed up on this one they can be replaced on the next election. What would be the libertarian solution to shitty beaches?
Move somewhere where the private owners offer clean beaches? What if they have clean beaches but no need for your services? Maybe they are bunch of hippies.
I can’t downvote your direct replies to me, just as you can’t downvote mine.
Anyway, since the government screwed up on this one they can be replaced on the next election. What would be the libertarian solution to shitty beaches?
Move somewhere where the private owners offer clean beaches? What if they have clean beaches but no need for your services? Maybe they are bunch of hippies.
> What if they have clean beaches but no need for your services?
Dump on their beaches, offer cleanup services?
Dump on their beaches, offer cleanup services?
Nobody said this was the result of libertarianism, nor that libertarianism is bad. The poster you replied to cannot downvote you, but others here watching your behavior can. Dial back the accusations, you're being unnecessarily aggressive defending a point which didn't need defense because it wasn't being attacked.
Depends if you are the kind of libertarian who acknowledges that there are limits to what can be privately owned, or not.
If you recognize that the sea and the air are fundamentally socialized resources, then there is no Libertarian solution and such resources must either be regulated by a government or treated as a commons, with consequent tragedy.
If you’re the kind of “no limits” Libertarian who thinks you can privatize the sea…
If you recognize that the sea and the air are fundamentally socialized resources, then there is no Libertarian solution and such resources must either be regulated by a government or treated as a commons, with consequent tragedy.
If you’re the kind of “no limits” Libertarian who thinks you can privatize the sea…
... And I wish one could say to them - no right to own a company.
Is there an actual "right to use the sea"? ! My city dumps dozens of wild dogs on beach, they attack people in large packs, and everyone is told to use beach at their own risk. No right to swim on public beach!
Or environmentalists dumps dangerous bears into public forrest. They routinely kill people, even roam city streets [1]. But there is no "right to safely use forest".
1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68675794
Or environmentalists dumps dangerous bears into public forrest. They routinely kill people, even roam city streets [1]. But there is no "right to safely use forest".
1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68675794
Here are several points to consider:
- Presuming "no right to swim in the sea" as a given, the point remains that "don't be an evil cuntbag" also isn't a law. If we had to pedantically write every single undesirable behaviour in law books, there wouldn't be enough paper in the world. That's why laws are sometimes broad, to cover arseholes like this, and I hope she finds something to make a good case
- Bears can feck right off, but to be fair, they have just _slightly_ more right to the forest than tampons and turds have to the sea, right?
- Presuming "no right to swim in the sea" as a given, the point remains that "don't be an evil cuntbag" also isn't a law. If we had to pedantically write every single undesirable behaviour in law books, there wouldn't be enough paper in the world. That's why laws are sometimes broad, to cover arseholes like this, and I hope she finds something to make a good case
- Bears can feck right off, but to be fair, they have just _slightly_ more right to the forest than tampons and turds have to the sea, right?
Slovakia has mountains with population of bears. The bears have always been there nobody has dumped them there. They dont routinely kill people. In recent years there was one death by a bear and one death when lady sliped why trying to run from bear. Those are only recorded incidents in last 50years.
Now Britain enjoys some of the worst polluted swimming waters https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/04/uk-waters-are-too-pol...