Notice how the article says “up to 66%” whereas the actual literature is
> Overall condition
Taking these four themes together, alongside assessments of invasive non-native species,
SEPA classifies each part of the water environment based on the worst condition of any
category. This means that whilst the classification results for each theme above range from
87% to 90% at good or better condition, and with 97% being free from invasive non-native
species, the combined classification indicates that 66% of our water environment overall is
in good or better condition in 2020. This is an improvement of 3 percentage points in overall
condition since we published the second RBMPs
Hardly surprising given how sparsely populated Scotland is
The advantages of having difficult geography, not like it was a conscious effort on Scotland’s part. If businesses had wanted to set up factories there you’d better believe Scotland would have taken that money.
100% of UK Lochs are in Scotland so it’s a pretty nonsensical comparison.
To be clear, the takeaway here should be “we should all be doing more to keep our waterways clean”, not “haha England sucks”.
edit: The comments here are very defensive, as though this is an attack on England. That’s not the point. The point of the comparison between land areas is to show where most of the work needs to be focussed in order to improve the environment for everyone.
England really needs to sort its shit out (literally and figuratively)
Everyone saying “but scotland” is missing the point.
The point is that English rivers are in terrible condition and that we should do something to improve that.
What annoys me about these studies is they are so pessimistic… anyone who saw what the water was like in the 70, 80 vs now can say we are light years ahead… yes, it could be cleaner so some rare newt can thrive, but at least you don’t itch for weeks when thrown in now
Everyone here is getting tied up in the scot vs eng aspect
Ignore the comparisons, 14% is a very low number of “decent quality” water
This issue needs to be adressed
How the fuck is this helpful or at all informative? Fucking obviously it is. Is this some kind of flex? Cos it’s a shit one if it is!
There are less people in Scotland to cause pollution.
I dread to think what Northern Ireland’s is, the water here is DISGUSTING.
People saying its just because of scotlands low population, the article states that excessive fertiliser usage causes 40% of English pollution, 35% is untreated sewage released by water companies (wtf) and 18% is run off town and road pollution. This isn’t simply a population thing. Scotland has public owned water companies too where running a profit and releasing untreated sewage is a thing. These are problems England needs to sort.
Since day dot the UK sewer system was predominantly ‘combined’ sewers in which rain water was sent through the same pipes as black water (toilet etc) until regulation changed in the 1960s. It also relied on waterways as an outlet in storm when the treatment works couldn’t keep up.. all we have done is added to the amount of surface that catches rain water and added houses producing sewerage and have a climate that is suffering from ‘storms’ more often and so every overflow will probably get used several times a year
BBC even changed the title because it’s a meaningless comparison when so much differs between the nations in terms of geography affecting farming practices and population density and hence sewerage and runoff issues.
I bet Greenland has a higher percentage of clean rivers than Scotland. Is that helpful to know?
A more useful comparator for England would be Germany or France. If they’re doing better then we should want to know how – are they spending more money, or is their legal framework different in some way re fertiliser usage, etc.,?
Point that there’s a lot of shit in our rivers is completely valid, but comparing apples to oranges isn’t helpful. The article is pretty lacking on detail.
A better comparison would have been taking the Clyde, Forth, Don and Dee and comparing them to four roughly equivalent rivers in England.
Pretty telling there that a lot of the comments are making snarky comments to Scots, instead of wondering why English waterways are in such a state.
Surely comparing Scotland to Denmark and England to Germany would be a fairer comparison?
18 comments
Notice how the article says “up to 66%” whereas the actual literature is
> Overall condition
Taking these four themes together, alongside assessments of invasive non-native species,
SEPA classifies each part of the water environment based on the worst condition of any
category. This means that whilst the classification results for each theme above range from
87% to 90% at good or better condition, and with 97% being free from invasive non-native
species, the combined classification indicates that 66% of our water environment overall is
in good or better condition in 2020. This is an improvement of 3 percentage points in overall
condition since we published the second RBMPs
Source: https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/594088/211222-final-rbmp3-scotland.pdf
Hardly surprising given how sparsely populated Scotland is
The advantages of having difficult geography, not like it was a conscious effort on Scotland’s part. If businesses had wanted to set up factories there you’d better believe Scotland would have taken that money.
100% of UK Lochs are in Scotland so it’s a pretty nonsensical comparison.
To be clear, the takeaway here should be “we should all be doing more to keep our waterways clean”, not “haha England sucks”.
edit: The comments here are very defensive, as though this is an attack on England. That’s not the point. The point of the comparison between land areas is to show where most of the work needs to be focussed in order to improve the environment for everyone.
England really needs to sort its shit out (literally and figuratively)
Everyone saying “but scotland” is missing the point.
The point is that English rivers are in terrible condition and that we should do something to improve that.
What annoys me about these studies is they are so pessimistic… anyone who saw what the water was like in the 70, 80 vs now can say we are light years ahead… yes, it could be cleaner so some rare newt can thrive, but at least you don’t itch for weeks when thrown in now
Everyone here is getting tied up in the scot vs eng aspect
Ignore the comparisons, 14% is a very low number of “decent quality” water
This issue needs to be adressed
How the fuck is this helpful or at all informative? Fucking obviously it is. Is this some kind of flex? Cos it’s a shit one if it is!
There are less people in Scotland to cause pollution.
I dread to think what Northern Ireland’s is, the water here is DISGUSTING.
People saying its just because of scotlands low population, the article states that excessive fertiliser usage causes 40% of English pollution, 35% is untreated sewage released by water companies (wtf) and 18% is run off town and road pollution. This isn’t simply a population thing. Scotland has public owned water companies too where running a profit and releasing untreated sewage is a thing. These are problems England needs to sort.
Since day dot the UK sewer system was predominantly ‘combined’ sewers in which rain water was sent through the same pipes as black water (toilet etc) until regulation changed in the 1960s. It also relied on waterways as an outlet in storm when the treatment works couldn’t keep up.. all we have done is added to the amount of surface that catches rain water and added houses producing sewerage and have a climate that is suffering from ‘storms’ more often and so every overflow will probably get used several times a year
BBC even changed the title because it’s a meaningless comparison when so much differs between the nations in terms of geography affecting farming practices and population density and hence sewerage and runoff issues.
I bet Greenland has a higher percentage of clean rivers than Scotland. Is that helpful to know?
A more useful comparator for England would be Germany or France. If they’re doing better then we should want to know how – are they spending more money, or is their legal framework different in some way re fertiliser usage, etc.,?
Point that there’s a lot of shit in our rivers is completely valid, but comparing apples to oranges isn’t helpful. The article is pretty lacking on detail.
A better comparison would have been taking the Clyde, Forth, Don and Dee and comparing them to four roughly equivalent rivers in England.
Pretty telling there that a lot of the comments are making snarky comments to Scots, instead of wondering why English waterways are in such a state.
Surely comparing Scotland to Denmark and England to Germany would be a fairer comparison?