Can people tell me if I have found something where George Monbiot writes sense?

[Oldstalker]

Today I read an article in the Gruniad (Guardian) written recently by George Monbiot. To me it makes sense but having become so cynical about campaigning journalists and journalism I wonder can more knowledgeable people than I on this forum tell me if he is writing sensibly or if it is b***ls? I would welcome knowledgeable advices. Am I right to be astonished?

Britain is becoming a toxic chemical dumping ground – yet another benefit of Brexit | George Monbiot

 

[Malxwal]

Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day...

 

[Apthorpe]

It certainly contains nonsense. His first example is what he describes as "aircraft fuel" deliberately creating the impression that this toxic chemical is bewing sprayed across our skies in large quantities by airlines and so on. But in fact, the fuel the is referring to is not jet fuel, but fuel for piston aircraft engines - which is a tiny quantity of fuel for a small number of mostly very light or vintage aircraft which are not in normal commercial use. The complaint is that we haven't regulated to tackle an insignificant problem.
He goes on to complain about toys (although the existing regulations for toys do allow prosecution for toys containing any harmful compound), formaldehyde (which is ubiquitous in nature and humans produce during digestion of proteins), plastics which may or may not be present in fertilisers at unknown levels etc.

The main theme, apart from his incessant whining about Brexit, arises because the EU's regulatory regime operates via a precautionary principle, where all that is necessary to ban a chemical is to allege that it is dangerous, claim that it isn't easy to avoid or mitigate the alleged risk, and make a fuss about it. Examples we are familiar with are the banning of various reloading powders and the ammunition containing them, even though there is no record of any harm having been caused to anybody in the normal modern use or exposure to these chemicals.
One of the reasons given for Brexit is that it would allow us to diverge from a very costly and onerous regulatory regime which often does not aid citizens but lumps significant extra costs on them. The failure of our Civil Service to do almost anything competently is a valid complaint, but we're not all being poisoned as this twaddle of Monbiot's alleges.

Essentially, if you're too scared to go out of your front door and wear a gas mask indoors at home, he's making an important point. If you're not, then he's sh1t-stirring.

 

[tackb]

the problem as Apthorpe puts quite well is since brexit (which should have been a liberating thing allowing us to get on free of the EU's shackles) the civil service has effectivly been on strike because the vote didn't go their way

it needs getting a grip of and some tough management to get it working again !

 

[Apthorpe]

the problem as Apthorpe puts quite well is since brexit (which should have been a liberating thing allowing us to get on free of the EU's shackles) the civil service has effectivly been on strike because the vote didn't go their way

it needs getting a grip of and some tough management to get it working again !

Actually, I don't even think this is much of a problem at all, although I do agree entirely with your opinions on the civil service which is an international embarrassment. Monbiot is complaining about the fact that we have failed to ban chemicals which are either used insignificantly or are not definitely known to cause any particular harm and which may be present in some objects at unknown levels. Personally, I'm not a fan of regulation without proper evidence of need, and while the precautionary principle may be useful in some areas, on the whole an analysis of harms vs benefits and costs is preferable to bone-headedness.

 

[tackb]

Actually, I don't even think this is much of a problem at all, although I do agree entirely with your opinions on the civil service which is an international embarrassment. Monbiot is complaining about the fact that we have failed to ban chemicals which are either used insignificantly or are not definitely known to cause any particular harm and which may be present in some objects at unknown levels. Personally, I'm not a fan of regulation without proper evidence of need, and while the precautionary principle may be useful in some areas, on the whole an analysis of harms vs benefits and costs is preferable to bone-headedness.

agreed , as you say there has been no examples of reloading powder causing issues and frankly the risk if there is one could surely be mitigated by PPE etc

advisorys on packaging rather than outright bans

 

[Oldstalker]

Thank you for measured responses. They suggest that I was not wrong to treat his article with some suspicion. Renewed grateful thanks.

 

[timbrayford]

UK REACH have taken over from EU REACH in pursuing anti shooting policies. The problem with Brexit is that it hasn't been delivered, with our own civil service eagerly picking up where the dictatorial EU Commission left off. As for Monbiot and the Guardian they are just a bunch of over privileged middle class gobshites with an opinion on everything and a knowledge of nothing and best ignored!

 

[Mr. Gain]

GM is one of all too many people who think it is more virtuous to lie and mislead for the sake of your ideology than to ensure the accuracy of your information and the fairness of your analysis. CP is another, but the list is a long one.

 

[enfieldspares]

One of the reasons given for Brexit is that it would allow us to diverge from a very costly and onerous regulatory regime which often does not aid citizens but lumps significant extra costs on them. The failure of our Civil Service to do almost anything competently is a valid complaint, but we're not all being poisoned as this twaddle of Monbiot's alleges.

Don't even get me started on Nitro-Mors which now is useless for stripping gunstocks. Might as well call Paddington Bear and ask him to give it a hard stare as it'd probably strip more finish than does today's "green" (yes, it really is labelled as "green") Nitro-Mors.

 

[tim@tcs]

Can people tell me if I have found something where George Monbiot writes sense?​

No

 

[tozzybum]

Let's face this pillock told his followers hill sheep farms caused flooding.
Not dodgy house builders using flood plains .And the waterways board haven't dredged rivers for 20 years so there silt city.
Can't be telling the truth when a few lies can push his vegetables agenda ,man's a devious arse .

 

[jimo]

Full of emotive inaccuracies and conveniently left out the bit that “Fighting Dirty” is himself and two others who are seeking crowd funding for the court case. Perhaps the plea for money will be in the next article?

 

[Wmjas]

Tells us that farmers are destroying the planet with synthetic fertilisers on one hand but takes the government to court for allowing farmers to spread muck? Doesn’t sound like he thought that out much…

 

[jimo]

Tells us that farmers are destroying the planet with synthetic fertilisers on one hand but takes the government to court for allowing farmers to spread muck? Doesn’t sound like he thought that out much…

He came on our stand at Groundswell a few years ago looking for an argument without telling us he was a journalist. Luckily I recognised him before one of the lads I work with launched into his “Tim Peak’s a See you next Tuesday” speech.

 

[Buchan]

Today I read an article in the Gruniad (Guardian) written recently by George Monbiot. To me it makes sense but having become so cynical about campaigning journalists and journalism I wonder can more knowledgeable people than I on this forum tell me if he is writing sensibly or if it is b***ls? I would welcome knowledgeable advices. Am I right to be astonished?

Yes, you are right to be astonished!! If the Monbiot rhetoric is removed, he is making a valid point. There is too much unregulated use of potentially harmful material without a proper assessment of its impact. I can't comment on aviation fuels, but formaldehyde is highly toxic. Yes, it is produced in the body by a variety of biochemical processes, but it is also broken down very rapidly. As ever, it's the overall amount that is an issue. The production of plastics is again, outside my field, but I think the bisphenols Monbiot refers to are flame retardants, maybe sensible in plastic sheeting, but do we need them in a drinks bottle? They are a serious endocrine disrupter.
Brexit did create an opportunity to do things differently from when we were in the EU, but so far, nothing. A particular example from my field is that the UK could have insisted on phase 2 studies for pet parasiticides, currently not required by the EU. The legislation was reviewed about 6 months ago, and nothing. So we continue with large quantities sold and no idea what happens to it.

With toxic materials, I quite like the precautionary principle. A company should have to prove their product, and, critically, their waste, causes no or minimal harm. If it makes it too expensive, then we do without, or pay more.

My frustration with Monbiot is that despite being an intelligent man, he succumbs too often to the Gruniad snarky style of writing and I switch off. The edition he did on "In Our Time" on climate change is measured and sensible - it was in 2000.

 

[CreedSnore]

I will start by stating that I do not work in the civil service! but can someone please give me an example of when the civil service have actually held up government policy i relation to brexit? Their job, simply put, is to help implement the policies put forward by the government of the day. The problem with any Brexit benefits is not that they were help up or sabotaged by the civil service but that the government were incapable of providing any policies to implement! please if you can think of any let me know! seriously I cannot think of a single post brexit policy put forward that has been a benefit to me or anyone I know... It easy to shout at the civil service, god they deserve it at times! but I think you need to look at bit higher up for the true incompetence in this case.