English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
English rivers polluted by neonicotinoids, first tests reveal
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/13/english-rivers-polluted-by-powerful-insecticides-first-tests-reveal
133 comments
FWIW, this is why some people have fears around GMO foods. It's not that they can't appreciate the benefits, it's because they fear that we're testing systems in production that we don't fully understand.
You can say that about all agriculture ever even more than you can about GMOs. We understand exact, precise genetic changes that have a much higher standards of testing than all of the genetic changes we've made to food using traditional techniques (mutagenesis, cross-breeding, selection) which modify dozens or hundreds of genes in highly unpredictable ways. We should be careful about all agricultural changes in a way proportional to what changes we made in the system, and not classify using modern science as always "too scary" to rely on.
If we're talking about Mendelevian use of alleles that exist in a species already, sure.
But have you seen those glow in the dark aquarium fish? Or the tomatoes that use flounder DNA to make them hardier in the freezer? How rigorously is it possible to test ramifications from those things?
But have you seen those glow in the dark aquarium fish? Or the tomatoes that use flounder DNA to make them hardier in the freezer? How rigorously is it possible to test ramifications from those things?
GMO produce fetches about the same market price, and is produced at about the same efficiency as modern non-GMO produce, so I also can't appreciate the "benefits".
[ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-fall... ]
[ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-fall... ]
GMO is just a red herring that distracts people from the fact that most GMO crops are all about pesticide resistance. GMOs are almost definitely sprayed with pesticides, and continue to carry trace amounts into our food supply and habitat. The sprays themselves are blends of many different synthetic chemicals, not just, e.g. glyphosate, alone.
The entire western food system resembles some kind of BNW-esque intelligence test, where you have to wade through this web of lies, and if you can't figure it out, you're basically eating small amounts of poison that dull your thinking, sap your energy, and shorten your lifespan.
Good luck figuring it out!
The entire western food system resembles some kind of BNW-esque intelligence test, where you have to wade through this web of lies, and if you can't figure it out, you're basically eating small amounts of poison that dull your thinking, sap your energy, and shorten your lifespan.
Good luck figuring it out!
Yes, it is so. Consider that corn was modified to be more resilient but its pollen may be compatible with nearby plants. Hybridization of transgenics with local flora may have unintended and far-reaching consequences. That's why the "Terminator" traits are typically outlawed. No one (eh...citation needed) desires a world where growing the food requires a proprietary compound. I doubt a civilization with a food supply like that could remain stable.
However! I read an interesting study that claimed Bt transgenics are better for food production & the environment because they kill crop pests but the carnivorous field fauna (spiders, horseflies, etc.) flourish with humankind's helping hand.
Whereas I typically purchase non-GMO foods, this revelation caused me to question, and to become ambivalent. No doubt pests would tolerate Bt with time, but in humans Bt is a non-toxic pesticide, and the germlines of the crop pests would probably never recover from the trait's proliferation. At the same time, the carnivorous "worker arthropods" which eat the crop pests would also experience a huge acceleration in their development.
Directed breeding in animals is an issue which has a tighter grip on my heart--some of the stuff that's been done to dogs and cats to "get them to look a certain way" is really messed up. Maybe some look at the fields the same way.
I do not know. It is not my choice. I am glad for that.
However! I read an interesting study that claimed Bt transgenics are better for food production & the environment because they kill crop pests but the carnivorous field fauna (spiders, horseflies, etc.) flourish with humankind's helping hand.
Whereas I typically purchase non-GMO foods, this revelation caused me to question, and to become ambivalent. No doubt pests would tolerate Bt with time, but in humans Bt is a non-toxic pesticide, and the germlines of the crop pests would probably never recover from the trait's proliferation. At the same time, the carnivorous "worker arthropods" which eat the crop pests would also experience a huge acceleration in their development.
Directed breeding in animals is an issue which has a tighter grip on my heart--some of the stuff that's been done to dogs and cats to "get them to look a certain way" is really messed up. Maybe some look at the fields the same way.
I do not know. It is not my choice. I am glad for that.
I think about this a lot with respect to society as a whole. Specifically, legalizing drugs, effects of social media, and universal basic income will affect the most complex system of all, 'society', in ways we can't possibly predict. Anyone who says these giant changes are definitely safe is naive.
Still, we need to try and make progress.
Still, we need to try and make progress.
GMOs...It's that we've engineered something and have absolutely no idea of what a recall might look like. Ask Toyota is that's their understanding and experience with engineering. Obviously, Mother Nature is multiple orders of magnitude more complex than automobiles.
[deleted]
Sone7(2)
> It like we can't understand complex systems very well.
The problem is we keep getting better at doing crazier things, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15929012
The problem is we keep getting better at doing crazier things, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15929012
> It like we can't understand complex systems very well.
I'd reckon the geniuses in the labs do understand complex systems very well, only problem is that these chemists, engineers, etc who do bring concerns their concerns to the table tend to get shut down in favor of getting a product to market so that the company can continue to reap profits no matter what the environmental impact.
I'd reckon the geniuses in the labs do understand complex systems very well, only problem is that these chemists, engineers, etc who do bring concerns their concerns to the table tend to get shut down in favor of getting a product to market so that the company can continue to reap profits no matter what the environmental impact.
Combine lack of humility with a short term memory and eventually we'll do oursevles in, like no other species has. Just give it time.
The primary concern of industrial food is moving large quantities of food efficiently, the same as gasoline or, well, insecticides; safety and nutrition only have to be barely high enough to support that. It's why we're absorbing insecticides and high fructose corn syrup, for example, in our bodies.
A friend of mine once told me that swimming in Thames would be a serious mistake as its water is poisonous. Are the neonicotinoids the reason or are there other dangerous chemicals too?
That might once have been true, and it’s far from perfect, but the Thames is a cleanup success story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20151111-how-the-river-tham...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20151111-how-the-river-tham...
There exists an automatic bird-repellent system: [1].
Can't we use the same idea for insects?
[1] https://birdcontrolgroup.com/agrilaser-autonomic/
Can't we use the same idea for insects?
[1] https://birdcontrolgroup.com/agrilaser-autonomic/
There might be literally millions of insects in a field, how many lasers would you need for that? Also, you would need much more precise sensors as detecting an insect is way harder than a bird. Such system would be way too expensive, unless you'd like to pay 100 euros for a loaf of bread.
Bill Gates is funding some efforts to that effect to kill mosquitos.
https://www.ted.com/talks/nathan_myhrvold_could_this_laser_z...
https://www.ted.com/talks/nathan_myhrvold_could_this_laser_z...
If that is the Dubh loch at the head of Glen Muick then I wonder how on earth stuff would get in there - it's fairly remote and reasonably high up. No farming territory for miles.
I wonder if anti-midgie lotions have these things in them?
I wonder if anti-midgie lotions have these things in them?
One thing to keep in mind is to try to imagine what the world would be like had insecticides like neonicotinoids not been put into use. Sure, there wouldn't be pollution from them, but would there be other negative effects?
Let's not forget that DDT, PCBs, and CFCs have contributed greatly in positive ways too. If they weren't used, the planet would be less polluted but we might have nowhere near the same quality of life as we do today --- just imagine how people lived several hundred years ago. It's hard to say, really.
Let's not forget that DDT, PCBs, and CFCs have contributed greatly in positive ways too. If they weren't used, the planet would be less polluted but we might have nowhere near the same quality of life as we do today --- just imagine how people lived several hundred years ago. It's hard to say, really.
> If they weren't used, the planet would be less polluted but we might have nowhere near the same quality of life as we do today
Those "organic/biological" products in the supermarket look fine to me.
Those "organic/biological" products in the supermarket look fine to me.
Those "organic/biological" products in the supermarket look fine to me.
...but can the whole population survive on those exclusively, or even afford them?
...but can the whole population survive on those exclusively, or even afford them?
Hundreds of thousands of years of human existence, in which our ancestors colonized the planet, suggests so.
Do we want to temporarily overshoot the carrying capacity by poisoning our environment at the risk of collapse if we lower that capacity in the process?
Do we want to temporarily overshoot the carrying capacity by poisoning our environment at the risk of collapse if we lower that capacity in the process?
I wonder what the effect of neonicotinoids on humans is... it can’t be good
The NIH has a metastudy here: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp515/
>As reviewed here, four studies reported low rates of adverse health effects from acute neonic exposure. Even the most severe outcomes, including two fatalities, may have been mediated by other factors (age, underlying health conditions, undetected coexposures). The acute poisoning studies did, however, elucidate clinical findings important for the diagnosis and treatment of acute neonic exposures, including a better understanding of neonic toxicokinetics in humans.
>As reviewed here, four studies reported low rates of adverse health effects from acute neonic exposure. Even the most severe outcomes, including two fatalities, may have been mediated by other factors (age, underlying health conditions, undetected coexposures). The acute poisoning studies did, however, elucidate clinical findings important for the diagnosis and treatment of acute neonic exposures, including a better understanding of neonic toxicokinetics in humans.
Keyword here: "acute". Nothing about chronic exposure, which is what is relevant here. Even if they did have a long-term study of low-dose exposure, it would be an extremely limited one (rats, mice, controlled conditions) missing the mix of much more stuff we are exposed to all the time.
Having suffered from (finally clinically diagnosed and clinically treated with chelators DMPS and DMSA - with great results) low-dose long-term heavy metal poisoning I had to find out, both myself (studying as much as I could) and from the doctors, that there basically exists next to zero clinically relevant research for a) low-dose exposure, b) long-term, c) (and this one is by far the worst) a mix of chemicals rather than examining just one or two at a time in isolation. The last one is very relevant - mixing stuff often dramatically changes the effect. I once found an LD (lethal dose) heavy metal poisoning study on rats where mixing lead and mercury was about a thousand times more lethal (i.e. 1/1000th the dose of both) compared to poisoning the rats with only one of them.
The reason isn't a conspiracy of course, it's just impractical to impossible to study anything but acute poisonings and only of one or very few chemicals at a time.
Also, each time somebody recites officially allowed values I cringe - for example, the medical science opinion about the desirable lead exposure is zero. However, of course this isn't practical - and this is what all those official limits are: Administrative practical values, considering what can be done, where the research stands (always erring on the opposite side of caution - you have to prove the bad effect before the limits are lowered) and at what cost.
So no, science does not have the answer about any of this. The internal medicine + environmental medicine research doctor that was my main doc is pretty pessimistic about the stuff we (humans) do, and this guy lives with the research, always citing this or that new study when we meet.
Maybe I should add that there indeed are lots and lots of studies. However, they are incredibly specific, they won't be the basis for tougher legislation/lower official limits, because even if you take a hundred (good) studies of that kind you did not prove that the specific effect observed in the lab is relevant "in the world setting", and/or on humans, and/or what the combined net effect of "everything" might be. Which is, at least today, pretty much impossible.
Having suffered from (finally clinically diagnosed and clinically treated with chelators DMPS and DMSA - with great results) low-dose long-term heavy metal poisoning I had to find out, both myself (studying as much as I could) and from the doctors, that there basically exists next to zero clinically relevant research for a) low-dose exposure, b) long-term, c) (and this one is by far the worst) a mix of chemicals rather than examining just one or two at a time in isolation. The last one is very relevant - mixing stuff often dramatically changes the effect. I once found an LD (lethal dose) heavy metal poisoning study on rats where mixing lead and mercury was about a thousand times more lethal (i.e. 1/1000th the dose of both) compared to poisoning the rats with only one of them.
The reason isn't a conspiracy of course, it's just impractical to impossible to study anything but acute poisonings and only of one or very few chemicals at a time.
Also, each time somebody recites officially allowed values I cringe - for example, the medical science opinion about the desirable lead exposure is zero. However, of course this isn't practical - and this is what all those official limits are: Administrative practical values, considering what can be done, where the research stands (always erring on the opposite side of caution - you have to prove the bad effect before the limits are lowered) and at what cost.
So no, science does not have the answer about any of this. The internal medicine + environmental medicine research doctor that was my main doc is pretty pessimistic about the stuff we (humans) do, and this guy lives with the research, always citing this or that new study when we meet.
Maybe I should add that there indeed are lots and lots of studies. However, they are incredibly specific, they won't be the basis for tougher legislation/lower official limits, because even if you take a hundred (good) studies of that kind you did not prove that the specific effect observed in the lab is relevant "in the world setting", and/or on humans, and/or what the combined net effect of "everything" might be. Which is, at least today, pretty much impossible.
> Having suffered from (finally clinically diagnosed and clinically treated with chelators DMPS and DMSA - with great results) low-dose long-term heavy metal poisoning I had to find out, both myself (studying as much as I could) and from the doctors
Wow. I'm extremely curious about how you found out, what your symptoms were, and what resources you used to educate yourself. Do you think that people with your condition are misdiagnosed on a large scale?
Wow. I'm extremely curious about how you found out, what your symptoms were, and what resources you used to educate yourself. Do you think that people with your condition are misdiagnosed on a large scale?
> I'm extremely curious about how you found out
Exclusion and desperation. I got nothing from various doctors despite problems that I thought should be treatable. It had very, very slowly gotten worse over two to three decades. It is very, very subtle, and until a threshold was reached I described myself as "100% healthy" - completely ignoring a myriad of increasing little problems. Because each and every one of them has alternative explanations, usually: aging, office/computer work, stress, wrong food, "everybody has problems", etc. Soooo much went away under chelation treatment that I didn't even have on the radar, things that I had attributed to the mentioned untreatable problems, mostly aging or stress or food. But it wasn't!
I thought that my problems seemed very treatable/diagnosable, but nobody even tried. "You take Nexium (a PPI) for the rest of your life" said a professor of gastroenterology, which to me was pure torture, I never felt as bad in my life as when I used that stuff. Then I found that I had a massive Candida problem, which had started when I took the PPI. A doctor confirmed it (the professor had ignored everything I had told him and thought it's all in my head), I was even given systemic anti-fungals (fluconazole), with huge positive effect, but then my hands where yellow... I then learned that Candida never is a root cause, always a symptom. Apparently I didn't have any of the usual medical textbook problems that lead to such a problem. The only thing left was something I found in the forums of the "crazy people": They claimed Candida often is a problem of people with a heavy metal problem. With nothing left to try and to lose I went down that route: Take measurements, find a specialist (I had to go very far), start chelation and see if it helps. Well, the measurements should middlish amounts of mercury, "You are in a gray zone but I can justify chelation therapy" said the doctor. The real proof came with the unexpectedly large success over the years.
.
If I was a doctor I would not treat this condition. It is next to impossible to detect - basically, there is no known method to conclusively test if heavy metals are a problem or not. You can get indications, but only acute poisonings with large doses can be shown through a simple test. So how did we know in my case? I was "lucky" enough to have had a few special conditions that lead to an acute surge, so I actually had significant levels (of mercury) in blood, hair and urine. Most people with chronic poisoning won't have that though. The rest of the proof that that indeed was the problem was all the things that started to improve after starting chelation - many of them completely unexpectedly. For example, during chelation, after each round, the tissue around my right-side thyroid was "working" (very active, some pain). The result, shown a year afterwards: A 5 mm nodule in the twice-normal-size thyroid had completely(!) disappeared, and the thyroid was almost normal size. I had had endocrinologists show that nodule and the double-sized right thyroid unchanged over almost three decades. The endocrinologist examined me with ultrasound TWICE because he did not believe his results. There is a lot more, that was just one of the highlights because people like undeniable biomedical imaging proofs, so much better than me saying "I can sleep much better".
So anyway, as I was saying, if I was a doctor I would not treat this condition. The problem is that you need crazy people like me. This requires a long-term commitment for an uncertain outcome. You also need resources - money, TIME (you cannot go on living a regular employee life, the chelators only help get things started, your body has to do most of it, and it requires lots of time and you need to rest or it (the body) won't do anything). Most people would never have that patience, as a doctor you will make your life much harder if you offer those treatments. Not to mention that there is the potential to be right - and make things a lot worse: If somebody indeed has a heavy metal problem chelation may make it worse (it mobilizes more than it can bind, since no chemical bond is eternal and perfect), and if their body already is on edge...
Also, the whole subject is itself poisoned. On the one hand you have few options to show anything conclusively, no good tests, on the other hand the whole topic of heavy metal poisoning, or just poisoning, is extremely popular in "alternative health" circles. So even if you are a doctor, you really, really don't want to be seen working in this area by your colleagues. It's much more acceptable (by both your medical colleagues as well as insurers!) to offer homeopathy, as an MD, than offering chelation. At least that's my observation.
.
> Do you think that people with your condition are misdiagnosed on a large scale?
I have no opinion about other people. A lot of things are very special in my own case. I certainly think the problem could be much larger than people think. On the NIH website I found a document that stated that mercury is far more toxic than lead. I took a course from Tufts University [0] about water treatment. Of the four weeks they spent one entire week, 25% of the whole course, only talking about lead. There were two professors, one for the engineering side, one for the medical side, and the medical professor cited study after study and showed graphs that the state of medical science is that the only safe level is zero (technically not feasible - thus not possible to have as an official limit). So there is a lot of attention on lead, has been for decades. I don't see nearly as much on mercury, supposedly much worse, despite there being quite a bit of mercury around us. For example, are you sure eating all that tuna and other sea fish, especially the predatory ones, is such a good idea? In my experience, the one I gained the last few years, involuntarily, the signs are extremely(!) subtle. You don't get "sick" or a fever. You may have a little bit of trouble with your eyes. Or you get problems with your carpal tunnel (RSI). The easy explanation will be, in both cases, that you spend too much time in front of computers. Or you have a bit more trouble finding good sleep. Your digestion acts up - but just a bit, if you went to a gastroenterologist they'd send you home "we found nothing wrong". The list goes on and on.
Are people misdiagnosed?
Maybe, I'd say probably - but there is no proven alternative. None. We just don't know.
.
There is a general mismatch problem with medical knowledge based on observation and statistics: It is one thing to know that x percent of a certain population have a problem. It is a completely different problem going the other way: If you have an individual, in front of you, does (s)he have the problem or not? The probability you have is of no use to you, you have to make a decision, yea/nay?
A prudent doctor, knowing that the odds are low, will always say "no" in such a case, and statistically speaking that's the winning strategy from a public health point of view. You know you lose a few, but that's the minimum, if you tried finding out who actually has the problem (that you cannot reliably diagnose on an individual level) your overall statistics would get worse. That means knowledge of a problem on the scale of the population is almost useless when it comes to making individual treatment decisions. You need something on that (individual) level. In the case of long-term exposure (or any exposure) to low-dose poisons we don't have much that we can use, not on the individual level.
.
[0] https://www.edx.org/course/biology-water-health-fundamentals...
Exclusion and desperation. I got nothing from various doctors despite problems that I thought should be treatable. It had very, very slowly gotten worse over two to three decades. It is very, very subtle, and until a threshold was reached I described myself as "100% healthy" - completely ignoring a myriad of increasing little problems. Because each and every one of them has alternative explanations, usually: aging, office/computer work, stress, wrong food, "everybody has problems", etc. Soooo much went away under chelation treatment that I didn't even have on the radar, things that I had attributed to the mentioned untreatable problems, mostly aging or stress or food. But it wasn't!
I thought that my problems seemed very treatable/diagnosable, but nobody even tried. "You take Nexium (a PPI) for the rest of your life" said a professor of gastroenterology, which to me was pure torture, I never felt as bad in my life as when I used that stuff. Then I found that I had a massive Candida problem, which had started when I took the PPI. A doctor confirmed it (the professor had ignored everything I had told him and thought it's all in my head), I was even given systemic anti-fungals (fluconazole), with huge positive effect, but then my hands where yellow... I then learned that Candida never is a root cause, always a symptom. Apparently I didn't have any of the usual medical textbook problems that lead to such a problem. The only thing left was something I found in the forums of the "crazy people": They claimed Candida often is a problem of people with a heavy metal problem. With nothing left to try and to lose I went down that route: Take measurements, find a specialist (I had to go very far), start chelation and see if it helps. Well, the measurements should middlish amounts of mercury, "You are in a gray zone but I can justify chelation therapy" said the doctor. The real proof came with the unexpectedly large success over the years.
.
If I was a doctor I would not treat this condition. It is next to impossible to detect - basically, there is no known method to conclusively test if heavy metals are a problem or not. You can get indications, but only acute poisonings with large doses can be shown through a simple test. So how did we know in my case? I was "lucky" enough to have had a few special conditions that lead to an acute surge, so I actually had significant levels (of mercury) in blood, hair and urine. Most people with chronic poisoning won't have that though. The rest of the proof that that indeed was the problem was all the things that started to improve after starting chelation - many of them completely unexpectedly. For example, during chelation, after each round, the tissue around my right-side thyroid was "working" (very active, some pain). The result, shown a year afterwards: A 5 mm nodule in the twice-normal-size thyroid had completely(!) disappeared, and the thyroid was almost normal size. I had had endocrinologists show that nodule and the double-sized right thyroid unchanged over almost three decades. The endocrinologist examined me with ultrasound TWICE because he did not believe his results. There is a lot more, that was just one of the highlights because people like undeniable biomedical imaging proofs, so much better than me saying "I can sleep much better".
So anyway, as I was saying, if I was a doctor I would not treat this condition. The problem is that you need crazy people like me. This requires a long-term commitment for an uncertain outcome. You also need resources - money, TIME (you cannot go on living a regular employee life, the chelators only help get things started, your body has to do most of it, and it requires lots of time and you need to rest or it (the body) won't do anything). Most people would never have that patience, as a doctor you will make your life much harder if you offer those treatments. Not to mention that there is the potential to be right - and make things a lot worse: If somebody indeed has a heavy metal problem chelation may make it worse (it mobilizes more than it can bind, since no chemical bond is eternal and perfect), and if their body already is on edge...
Also, the whole subject is itself poisoned. On the one hand you have few options to show anything conclusively, no good tests, on the other hand the whole topic of heavy metal poisoning, or just poisoning, is extremely popular in "alternative health" circles. So even if you are a doctor, you really, really don't want to be seen working in this area by your colleagues. It's much more acceptable (by both your medical colleagues as well as insurers!) to offer homeopathy, as an MD, than offering chelation. At least that's my observation.
.
> Do you think that people with your condition are misdiagnosed on a large scale?
I have no opinion about other people. A lot of things are very special in my own case. I certainly think the problem could be much larger than people think. On the NIH website I found a document that stated that mercury is far more toxic than lead. I took a course from Tufts University [0] about water treatment. Of the four weeks they spent one entire week, 25% of the whole course, only talking about lead. There were two professors, one for the engineering side, one for the medical side, and the medical professor cited study after study and showed graphs that the state of medical science is that the only safe level is zero (technically not feasible - thus not possible to have as an official limit). So there is a lot of attention on lead, has been for decades. I don't see nearly as much on mercury, supposedly much worse, despite there being quite a bit of mercury around us. For example, are you sure eating all that tuna and other sea fish, especially the predatory ones, is such a good idea? In my experience, the one I gained the last few years, involuntarily, the signs are extremely(!) subtle. You don't get "sick" or a fever. You may have a little bit of trouble with your eyes. Or you get problems with your carpal tunnel (RSI). The easy explanation will be, in both cases, that you spend too much time in front of computers. Or you have a bit more trouble finding good sleep. Your digestion acts up - but just a bit, if you went to a gastroenterologist they'd send you home "we found nothing wrong". The list goes on and on.
Are people misdiagnosed?
Maybe, I'd say probably - but there is no proven alternative. None. We just don't know.
.
There is a general mismatch problem with medical knowledge based on observation and statistics: It is one thing to know that x percent of a certain population have a problem. It is a completely different problem going the other way: If you have an individual, in front of you, does (s)he have the problem or not? The probability you have is of no use to you, you have to make a decision, yea/nay?
A prudent doctor, knowing that the odds are low, will always say "no" in such a case, and statistically speaking that's the winning strategy from a public health point of view. You know you lose a few, but that's the minimum, if you tried finding out who actually has the problem (that you cannot reliably diagnose on an individual level) your overall statistics would get worse. That means knowledge of a problem on the scale of the population is almost useless when it comes to making individual treatment decisions. You need something on that (individual) level. In the case of long-term exposure (or any exposure) to low-dose poisons we don't have much that we can use, not on the individual level.
.
[0] https://www.edx.org/course/biology-water-health-fundamentals...
Where did the mercury in your body come from? Do you have any guesses? I avoid eating tuna and other large aquatic predators to avoid mercury but I've never looked into it other sources.
It's effects pretty bad but indirect.
Your question is interesting but might be better restated as: "What is the effect on humans if there is a drastic decline in flying insects?"
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect-decline-germany/...
Your question is interesting but might be better restated as: "What is the effect on humans if there is a drastic decline in flying insects?"
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect-decline-germany/...
Well, It does help keep our windshields clean from all that bug splatter.
Start travelling from West Europe towards East Europe. Until you reach Romania/Slovakia/Serbia/Ukraine, your car is clean.
Over these borders, after 10km of night ( or even day) drive your car will be splatted with insects. No idea why, but the vegetation is incredibly varied/wild compared with West Europe.
Over these borders, after 10km of night ( or even day) drive your car will be splatted with insects. No idea why, but the vegetation is incredibly varied/wild compared with West Europe.
Slovakia here. Not sure about the eastern part of our country as I don't travel there very often, but as for the western part, we are fully integrated into the ecological disasters of western Europe. Meaning almost no insects this summer. Even mosquitoes were far from their usual numbers.
I drove 400 miles in Florida at all times of day and night between Daytona Beach and Tampa, including a couple national parks along the coasts, and I only had about 2 bug splatters.
But the mosquitoes north of Cape Canaveral were on to me the moment I got out to take a short hike.
Did similar driving Eastern Kansas/Western Missouri below Kansas City, and no bug splatters. Doesn't matter time of day, traffic, countryside, just nothing.
But the mosquitoes north of Cape Canaveral were on to me the moment I got out to take a short hike.
Did similar driving Eastern Kansas/Western Missouri below Kansas City, and no bug splatters. Doesn't matter time of day, traffic, countryside, just nothing.
The water north of the Cape is called the Mosquito Lagoon for a reason...
If you want to see serious bug splatters, try Okeechobee during love-bug season. I drove through that once about eight years ago, and the marks are still visible on the car.
If you want to see serious bug splatters, try Okeechobee during love-bug season. I drove through that once about eight years ago, and the marks are still visible on the car.
After years of rubbish in the UK press about the impact of regulations from the EU, they can add protecting fish, bird and most likely human health to the list of 'harm' done. I'm glad the EU still cares about the environment.
The UK is still in the EU and yet the river is still polluted.
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
Americans who enjoy "rolling coal" come to mind.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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."
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.
> 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/
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
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
What regulation and what 'caring' (in this instance)? "No official limits exists in the EU for neonicotinoid pollution in freshwater".
> In 2012, the European Commission asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to study the safety of three neonicotinoids, in response to growing concerns about the impact of neonicotinoids on honey bees. The study was published in January 2013, stating that neonicotinoids pose an unacceptably high risk to bees...
> In response to the study, the European Commission recommended a restriction of their use across the European Union. On 29 April 2013, 15 of the 27 EU member states voted to restrict the use of three neonicotinoids for two years starting 1 December 2013.
> The UK, which voted against the bill, disagreed: "Having a healthy bee population is a top priority for us, but we did not support the proposal for a ban because our scientific evidence doesn’t support it."
> The decision was up for review in 2016. In March 2017, The Guardian printed an article which claimed that they had obtained information that indicated that the European commission wants a complete ban and cite "high acute risks to bees". A ban could be in place this year (2017) if the proposals are approved by a majority of EU member states
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#Europe
> In response to the study, the European Commission recommended a restriction of their use across the European Union. On 29 April 2013, 15 of the 27 EU member states voted to restrict the use of three neonicotinoids for two years starting 1 December 2013.
> The UK, which voted against the bill, disagreed: "Having a healthy bee population is a top priority for us, but we did not support the proposal for a ban because our scientific evidence doesn’t support it."
> The decision was up for review in 2016. In March 2017, The Guardian printed an article which claimed that they had obtained information that indicated that the European commission wants a complete ban and cite "high acute risks to bees". A ban could be in place this year (2017) if the proposals are approved by a majority of EU member states
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#Europe
No but they did attempt to ban neonicotinoids across Europe, against stiff opposition from the UK government.
I'm interested in which donor made them oppose it? Presumably one of those who is driving Brexit so they can pay off the Tories and get further protections (of people, environment) removed; aka "recover our sovereignty".
Different countries have different priorities. That's the good thing about sovereignty. Don't like your current government's ideas? Replace them at the next election. On the other hand, you don't like the EU's ideas? Um... good luck with that. Just be glad that the EU's been relatively benign so far.
Yeah! Don't like your country's air pollution controls? Just move next door! Problem solved.
Sorry to mock you, but environmental concerns affect us all. Earth is one giant connected system; everything eventually influences everything else. It's just a matter of the latency of the connections. Pollution is something we need to tackle globally, because many types of pollutants don't break down naturally or necessarily become less dangerous. On the contrary, many continue to accumulate and are concentrated by natural processes into places where water drains--this is why we find these things in rivers and lakes first, and in the highest concentrations. They are everywhere, tho.
Sorry to mock you, but environmental concerns affect us all. Earth is one giant connected system; everything eventually influences everything else. It's just a matter of the latency of the connections. Pollution is something we need to tackle globally, because many types of pollutants don't break down naturally or necessarily become less dangerous. On the contrary, many continue to accumulate and are concentrated by natural processes into places where water drains--this is why we find these things in rivers and lakes first, and in the highest concentrations. They are everywhere, tho.
Strawman. Anti-BigGovernment != Anti-Environment.
Sure, but in reality those go hand in hand.
Lets say I disagree with EU-enfoced regulation ? Do you count it as anti-environement ? What if agree to same regulation if enfoced by UK ?
Point is, its about who enforcing it not what. If even that does not fix your observations, I would like to request some proof/citations.
Point is, its about who enforcing it not what. If even that does not fix your observations, I would like to request some proof/citations.
The EU doesn’t enforce the regulations anyway, member states do through their respective agencies. In this case, the Environment Agency and/or Scottish EPA will have responsibility.
I think my chances of changing my country's government if I don't like it are pretty much the same as changing the EU.
In the UK, I think chances of getting workers rights, privacy, consumer rights, environmental issues, etc., passed in the EU is far far greater than getting any such thing passed by the Tories.
That's entirely expected, the EU as a whole is more liberal, more green, and more socialist than the Tories.
That's entirely expected, the EU as a whole is more liberal, more green, and more socialist than the Tories.
It's the difference of (1/country population) and (1/511,805,088). So slightly higher chance changing your countrys government. But you have the added bonus of having the same language, good luck with that in the EU... :-)
You personally can't change your government, you only have one vote. Many voters together can change it.
That's not really different in the EU.
That's not really different in the EU.
> Just be glad that the EU's been relatively benign so far.
The creation of free movement of people, goods, services and capital across 28 States and creating a common currency used by many of them is arguably not “benign”.
For avoidance of doubt I’m in no way expressing an opinion on the merits of these - simply that it is not benign in the sense of having done nothing.
The creation of free movement of people, goods, services and capital across 28 States and creating a common currency used by many of them is arguably not “benign”.
For avoidance of doubt I’m in no way expressing an opinion on the merits of these - simply that it is not benign in the sense of having done nothing.
I wonder what your opinion is of the free movement of people, goods, services and capital across 48 states?
Those things sound fantastic.
> that it is not benign in the sense of having done nothing.
I think that you're using the word in a pretty unusual way there, perhaps inspired by medical usage. 'benign' comes from the latin meaning 'good', and has the same root as 'benefactor', 'beneficial', 'benefit' or 'bonus'. In its nonmedical sense it almost always refers to something being good, not having negligible effect.
I think that you're using the word in a pretty unusual way there, perhaps inspired by medical usage. 'benign' comes from the latin meaning 'good', and has the same root as 'benefactor', 'beneficial', 'benefit' or 'bonus'. In its nonmedical sense it almost always refers to something being good, not having negligible effect.
Analytical techniques are incredible today. It's not unusual for the lower detection limit to be parts per billion or parts per trillion.
One ppt is 1 mg of material (smaller than a match head) dissolved in a cube of water that measures 100m on each side. Bigger than an Olympic sized swimming pool.
So the fact they said neonicotinoids were detected means nothing. The real question is how much was detected and dose that level have an impact on living organisms.
One ppt is 1 mg of material (smaller than a match head) dissolved in a cube of water that measures 100m on each side. Bigger than an Olympic sized swimming pool.
So the fact they said neonicotinoids were detected means nothing. The real question is how much was detected and dose that level have an impact on living organisms.
The linked paper says this:
> we recommend here that ecological thresholds for neonicotinoid water concentrations need to be below 0.2 μg/L (shortterm acute) or 0.035 μg/L (long-term chronic) to avoid lasting effects on aquatic invertebrate communities
I assume the map refers to these values. μg/L is the same as parts-per-billion in case anyone was wondering.
> we recommend here that ecological thresholds for neonicotinoid water concentrations need to be below 0.2 μg/L (shortterm acute) or 0.035 μg/L (long-term chronic) to avoid lasting effects on aquatic invertebrate communities
I assume the map refers to these values. μg/L is the same as parts-per-billion in case anyone was wondering.
I agree that analytical techiniques (e.g. detection of radio isotopes) are amazing, but I think this scale is off.
(100^3)x(1000kg)=10^12 grams vs 1mg is a part per quadrillion.
So a 10m cube compared to a 1mm cube is part per trillion. That's the 10,000^3 ratio.
(100^3)x(1000kg)=10^12 grams vs 1mg is a part per quadrillion.
So a 10m cube compared to a 1mm cube is part per trillion. That's the 10,000^3 ratio.
How would there be a capitalist incentive not to do these things? Do we really need regulations? Why do these things happen? Why do people think it is acceptable to pollute?
"Do we really need regulations?"
Yes. You need to read on industrial history if this is not obvious to you.
The nature of business and industry is such that they prefer local short term optimizations. In this context an environmental hazard is not considered a concern for various reasons, including, it incurs no immediate negative impact on the factory, the impact of one factory would be insignificant because everyone else is doing it and cutting chemical X would give competitors a financial edge, etc.
The only way to curb culture which creates negative externalities is to pipe those externalities back to it's source. Regulations and fines are a one way to make sure there is a feedback from negative externalities back to their source.
Think of it as an algorithmic problem - local optimization seldom leads to a global optimum. Hence, sometimes global tweaks can benefit an entire system.
The good news is that regulations work, and damage can heal.
See for example how CFC:s destroyed ozone layer before banning them.
Yes. You need to read on industrial history if this is not obvious to you.
The nature of business and industry is such that they prefer local short term optimizations. In this context an environmental hazard is not considered a concern for various reasons, including, it incurs no immediate negative impact on the factory, the impact of one factory would be insignificant because everyone else is doing it and cutting chemical X would give competitors a financial edge, etc.
The only way to curb culture which creates negative externalities is to pipe those externalities back to it's source. Regulations and fines are a one way to make sure there is a feedback from negative externalities back to their source.
Think of it as an algorithmic problem - local optimization seldom leads to a global optimum. Hence, sometimes global tweaks can benefit an entire system.
The good news is that regulations work, and damage can heal.
See for example how CFC:s destroyed ozone layer before banning them.
Why does this apply to one group of people (private industry) but not the other (govt) ? Both are money-seeking.
It applies to both. It's just the mechanisms for regulation and feedback are different.
When you don't have a mechanism for regulation in government, such as democracy, you tend to get very bad government.
That's not to suggest that fines or elections are particularly effective but they serve similar purposes.
When you don't have a mechanism for regulation in government, such as democracy, you tend to get very bad government.
That's not to suggest that fines or elections are particularly effective but they serve similar purposes.
> You need to read on industrial history if this is not obvious to you.
I'm asking questions to learn something from the discussion. Currently, my opinion is that regulations are necessary, but perhaps they aren't, and I would like to hear why.
> Think of it as an algorithmic problem - local optimization seldom leads to a global optimum. Hence, sometimes global tweaks can benefit an entire system.
To me, this sounds as if the power of the government needs to be huge and centralized? Because obviously local agents cannot come up with globally optimal solution (if the problem is not structured in a way they can).
For example, the huge use of insecticides and pesticides enables the industry of cheap meat and dairy. Regularizing insecticides and pesticides will most definitely increase the costs for the producers and the price of the product will increase. On the other hand, there are enormous subsidies in farming and will these subsidies now increase to keep the prices low?
These regulations, at least that's how it looks to me, are directly impacting the tax payer, not the industry players.
EDIT: I'm out of discussion. Getting to many downvotes for no particular reason.
I'm asking questions to learn something from the discussion. Currently, my opinion is that regulations are necessary, but perhaps they aren't, and I would like to hear why.
> Think of it as an algorithmic problem - local optimization seldom leads to a global optimum. Hence, sometimes global tweaks can benefit an entire system.
To me, this sounds as if the power of the government needs to be huge and centralized? Because obviously local agents cannot come up with globally optimal solution (if the problem is not structured in a way they can).
For example, the huge use of insecticides and pesticides enables the industry of cheap meat and dairy. Regularizing insecticides and pesticides will most definitely increase the costs for the producers and the price of the product will increase. On the other hand, there are enormous subsidies in farming and will these subsidies now increase to keep the prices low?
These regulations, at least that's how it looks to me, are directly impacting the tax payer, not the industry players.
EDIT: I'm out of discussion. Getting to many downvotes for no particular reason.
> I'm asking questions to learn something from the discussion. Currently, my opinion is that regulations are necessary, but perhaps they aren't, and I would like to hear why.
Trying to recall what they taught us in business school. Regulations of the kind I think you mean (i.e. ban pollution) are one way to combat externalities, but there are others, in theory.
Econ. researchers stipulate property rights as one way:
If I own the river, and the right to fish in the future, my incentives will shift toward not polluting today. If the river is public and I have no guarantee of future yields, then the game theoretically smart thing to do is pollute as much as I can get away with.
As always, the devil is in the implementation details.
Pre-emtping useless word thinking: I am aware that "property rights" can fall under regulation, depending on definitions. If that bothers you, feel free to s/regulation/bans in the paragraphs preceding this.
Trying to recall what they taught us in business school. Regulations of the kind I think you mean (i.e. ban pollution) are one way to combat externalities, but there are others, in theory.
Econ. researchers stipulate property rights as one way:
If I own the river, and the right to fish in the future, my incentives will shift toward not polluting today. If the river is public and I have no guarantee of future yields, then the game theoretically smart thing to do is pollute as much as I can get away with.
As always, the devil is in the implementation details.
Pre-emtping useless word thinking: I am aware that "property rights" can fall under regulation, depending on definitions. If that bothers you, feel free to s/regulation/bans in the paragraphs preceding this.
> Regularizing insecticides and pesticides will most definitely increase the costs
It will decrease costs but also decrease yield.
If only one farm does this, they lose money.
If it's imposed across an economy and imports of non-compliant produce are taxed, then the reduced yield drives up prices. This is effectively the EU approach.
It will decrease costs but also decrease yield.
If only one farm does this, they lose money.
If it's imposed across an economy and imports of non-compliant produce are taxed, then the reduced yield drives up prices. This is effectively the EU approach.
Pollution generally involves a tragedy of the commons type situation. Ownership over air in the atmosphere and water in a river is fluid and diffuse, and benefits to polluting can acrue to specific persons while the costs of pollution are externalised and spread across everyone.
Sometimes I wonder if future generations will be sickened by the idea that individuals thought it was ok to drive cars that simply released poisonous gasses and particulates into the air rather than trapping and storing them for safe disposal. After all, we know it has already led to society wide increases in violence due to retarded brain development.
A libertarian/hardcore capitalist approach might be to try to actually codify ownership rights over these things and give them to persons who could exert them against polluters.
I and I suspect many others would find that pretty disturbing. I think the idea of being forced to pay rent for breathing someones air is shocking, but if nobody stands to benefit from providing good quality air, there is no clear capitalist incentive to spend effort creating and ensuring it. Without that we need some other mechanism to force polluters to pay for the costs of their behaviour instead of forcing them onto everyone else.
One idea would be that if there were enough detailed, trustworthy information that consumers might hold companies accountable for their abuse of community resources, and vote with their wallets but empirically speaking this kind of safeguard seems to work very patchily when it works at all.
Once those two possibilities are eliminated I'm struggling to think of anything that doesn't end up looking like regulation.
Sometimes I wonder if future generations will be sickened by the idea that individuals thought it was ok to drive cars that simply released poisonous gasses and particulates into the air rather than trapping and storing them for safe disposal. After all, we know it has already led to society wide increases in violence due to retarded brain development.
A libertarian/hardcore capitalist approach might be to try to actually codify ownership rights over these things and give them to persons who could exert them against polluters.
I and I suspect many others would find that pretty disturbing. I think the idea of being forced to pay rent for breathing someones air is shocking, but if nobody stands to benefit from providing good quality air, there is no clear capitalist incentive to spend effort creating and ensuring it. Without that we need some other mechanism to force polluters to pay for the costs of their behaviour instead of forcing them onto everyone else.
One idea would be that if there were enough detailed, trustworthy information that consumers might hold companies accountable for their abuse of community resources, and vote with their wallets but empirically speaking this kind of safeguard seems to work very patchily when it works at all.
Once those two possibilities are eliminated I'm struggling to think of anything that doesn't end up looking like regulation.
The capitalist incentive is that failing to comply with regulations is more expensive than complying and potentially gets in the way of earning revenue (due to being banned from operating in the market, for example).
The evidence seems to point very strongly toward the need for regulations. This is notable in examples such as China which has stepped into the developed world recently and has not yet caught up with the same level of regulations. Resulting in excessive and dangerous pollution throughout the country. While on the flip side we've seen the rapidity and efficiency with which solid regulations can result in cleaner air, safer waterways, species brought back from the brink of extinction, and so forth. Regulation works. Period. It may not be perfect, but it does work and is an economically viable solution.
Why do these things happen? Why do they think it's acceptable to pollute? Because they perceive a short-term gain in profits and without being forced to consider the negative externalities of their actions they simply won't (or can't while operating competitively with their competition).
The evidence seems to point very strongly toward the need for regulations. This is notable in examples such as China which has stepped into the developed world recently and has not yet caught up with the same level of regulations. Resulting in excessive and dangerous pollution throughout the country. While on the flip side we've seen the rapidity and efficiency with which solid regulations can result in cleaner air, safer waterways, species brought back from the brink of extinction, and so forth. Regulation works. Period. It may not be perfect, but it does work and is an economically viable solution.
Why do these things happen? Why do they think it's acceptable to pollute? Because they perceive a short-term gain in profits and without being forced to consider the negative externalities of their actions they simply won't (or can't while operating competitively with their competition).
Here's a great start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
Take a look at the third paragraph talking about free rider and negative externalities. This is a strong intuitive explanation of the need for larger bodies to step in and regulate.
Take a look at the third paragraph talking about free rider and negative externalities. This is a strong intuitive explanation of the need for larger bodies to step in and regulate.
this isn't just an issue of capitalism, pollution in communist countries was as bad if not worse as controls were either non existent or just ignored.
it mostly occurs because industries move faster than the science to study the effects of the by products and the desire by politicians to push economic growth and in some cases self enrichment. then the next generation down gets the results and ends up fixing it provided their method of government allows for it.
it mostly occurs because industries move faster than the science to study the effects of the by products and the desire by politicians to push economic growth and in some cases self enrichment. then the next generation down gets the results and ends up fixing it provided their method of government allows for it.
I'm never sure whether people making posts like this are:
- really this naive
- just bright high school kids
- simply trolling
- completely blinded by doctrine ("capitalism is the supreme good, so how is it possible that it is producing a bad outcome? Something must be wrong with the universe")
- actually a google AI trying to learn about the world from first principles
- really this naive
- just bright high school kids
- simply trolling
- completely blinded by doctrine ("capitalism is the supreme good, so how is it possible that it is producing a bad outcome? Something must be wrong with the universe")
- actually a google AI trying to learn about the world from first principles
Whichever it is, we have to give credit for asking the questions about what they don't understand instead of just blindly believing what they think they know.
>How would there be a capitalist incentive not to do these things?
Not sure what a capitalist incentive is, but we have plenty of ways to potentially regulate this. Are you asking about technical feasibility of finding the actors responsible for it?
>Do we really need regulations? Yes.
>Why do these things happen? Greed/profit motive.
>Why do people think it is acceptable to pollute? Greed/profit motive.
>Do we really need regulations? Yes.
>Why do these things happen? Greed/profit motive.
>Why do people think it is acceptable to pollute? Greed/profit motive.
> Not sure what a capitalist incentive is, but we have plenty of ways to potentially regulate this. Are you asking about technical feasibility of finding the actors responsible for it?
I was thinking, in the framework of capitalism, what would the incentive be, other than regulation, to not pollute? Why does it not work, is the incentive missing?
For example, there are companies like Clean Harbors that earn billions from recycling toxic waste, oil etc. Are they earning money because regulations need to be met, or is there a profit to be made?
If latter, how come no one is trying to make profit by capturing pesticides/insecticides?
Would deregularization make these billion dollar waste collection companies bankrupt?
I was thinking, in the framework of capitalism, what would the incentive be, other than regulation, to not pollute? Why does it not work, is the incentive missing?
For example, there are companies like Clean Harbors that earn billions from recycling toxic waste, oil etc. Are they earning money because regulations need to be met, or is there a profit to be made?
If latter, how come no one is trying to make profit by capturing pesticides/insecticides?
Would deregularization make these billion dollar waste collection companies bankrupt?
> Are they earning money because regulations need to be met?
Yes? If there aren't regulations, then waste will be disposed of by the cheapest method, which usually involves dumping it into the atmosphere and/or water. This is how it used to be until environmental campaigning in the 70s and 80s got the regulations introduced in the West, and far more recently in China.
Yes? If there aren't regulations, then waste will be disposed of by the cheapest method, which usually involves dumping it into the atmosphere and/or water. This is how it used to be until environmental campaigning in the 70s and 80s got the regulations introduced in the West, and far more recently in China.
> the cheapest method, which usually involves dumping it into the atmosphere and/or water
The ironic thing is that we behave exactly like bacteria and animals and all other life, which have no choice but to expel their waste products directly into the environment. Properly adapted ecosystems have mechanisms for recycling all waste.
The difference with humans is threefold:
1.) We are too many, so the capacity of the environment into which we expunge our waste products can no longer handle the volume of waste we produce, forcing us to handle it with industrial processes.
2.) We produce waste types that the environment has no natural recycling mechanisms for, such as plastic, metal, and thousands of industrially produced chemicals, not to mention nuclear waste. We have only barely scratched the surface for recycling some materials, and the rest we literally just dump into giant holes or the oceans.
3.) We are busy destroying all the ecosystems that would naturally support us and recycle our waste, not only through loss of habitat, but mass dieoffs of insects, fish, etc.
The ironic thing is that we behave exactly like bacteria and animals and all other life, which have no choice but to expel their waste products directly into the environment. Properly adapted ecosystems have mechanisms for recycling all waste.
The difference with humans is threefold:
1.) We are too many, so the capacity of the environment into which we expunge our waste products can no longer handle the volume of waste we produce, forcing us to handle it with industrial processes.
2.) We produce waste types that the environment has no natural recycling mechanisms for, such as plastic, metal, and thousands of industrially produced chemicals, not to mention nuclear waste. We have only barely scratched the surface for recycling some materials, and the rest we literally just dump into giant holes or the oceans.
3.) We are busy destroying all the ecosystems that would naturally support us and recycle our waste, not only through loss of habitat, but mass dieoffs of insects, fish, etc.
> We are too many
Almost all natural ecosystems are death-limited, usually through some combination of predation, disease, or starvation. This was the case for humans up until about the 19th century. We've killed our predators and have to a great (but not total) extent achieved victories over disease and starvation. But if we're not to become death-limited again we must become contraception-limited.
Almost all natural ecosystems are death-limited, usually through some combination of predation, disease, or starvation. This was the case for humans up until about the 19th century. We've killed our predators and have to a great (but not total) extent achieved victories over disease and starvation. But if we're not to become death-limited again we must become contraception-limited.
Whey is waste in the dairy industry, yet it's sold profitably as a dietary supplement and used all over the processed food market.
Unfit oranges, apples etc. are waste to the fruit producers, but juices love it.
Cow shit is a complete waste but is used as a fertilizer. Although, a bunch of cow shit is also thrown into rivers.
Wasted food is ground into powder and given to animals.
I guess food might be an exception. I don't know if there exists something similar for oil, chemicals etc.
Unfit oranges, apples etc. are waste to the fruit producers, but juices love it.
Cow shit is a complete waste but is used as a fertilizer. Although, a bunch of cow shit is also thrown into rivers.
Wasted food is ground into powder and given to animals.
I guess food might be an exception. I don't know if there exists something similar for oil, chemicals etc.
Well, yes, the difference between "waste" and "feedstock" is whether there is some valuable use for the thing and whether it can be easily collected. Insecticide once used cannot be easily collected again.
Much of the history of the petrochemicals industry is trying to find valuable things to do with less-valuable fractions and non-oil stuff that comes up from wells. Of course, if it's not valuable it tends to be flared off and contributes to global warming.
> Wasted food is ground into powder and given to animals
.. although since the CJD epidemic I think this is extremely limited. By regulations.
Much of the history of the petrochemicals industry is trying to find valuable things to do with less-valuable fractions and non-oil stuff that comes up from wells. Of course, if it's not valuable it tends to be flared off and contributes to global warming.
> Wasted food is ground into powder and given to animals
.. although since the CJD epidemic I think this is extremely limited. By regulations.
Capitalism optimizes for the impact it has on the actors involved in the transaction. The party offering the service/product, and the party paying for it. The impact of other parties is not part of that equation.
So if you want create an incentive, have the health impact on society as a whole, impact the profits of the parties involved in creating the pollutants.
So you could for instance bind their taxes to some health measurements. Then you would have a market for capturing pesticides (if that's even possible).
Much simpler and probably more efficient is just to regulate.
So if you want create an incentive, have the health impact on society as a whole, impact the profits of the parties involved in creating the pollutants.
So you could for instance bind their taxes to some health measurements. Then you would have a market for capturing pesticides (if that's even possible).
Much simpler and probably more efficient is just to regulate.
Sure greed/profit motive, but it is accepted by the general public because it is local direct benefit (less crop failure) vs diffuse harm to a large area.
Why do people think it is acceptable to pollute?
Pollution is usually a side-effect, not a goal. For example, people didn't mine and burn coal for nothing, they used it for heating and energy generation. Look at the Industrial Revolution for another vivid example.
Pollution is usually a side-effect, not a goal. For example, people didn't mine and burn coal for nothing, they used it for heating and energy generation. Look at the Industrial Revolution for another vivid example.
https://shadowproof.com/2014/02/20/trophic-cascade-how-wolve...
It like we can't understand complex systems very well. Almost everything we do seem to have to have major unintended consequences. We see this over and over again, we have to abandon the "as cheap and fast as possible" thinking !