Brexit: Environmentalists fear ‘bonfire’ of regulations designed to fight climate change and protect wildlife

By Rachael Pells

Regulations set in place to help fight climate change and protect Britain’s wildlife may be destroyed following the Brexit result, top environmentalists have warned.

Reacting to the vote to leave the European Union, charity groups and climate change campaigners said the result could have a “devastating” effect on the UK environment, since more than 70 per cent of environmental safeguarding comes from European legislation.

Greenpeace UK executive director John Sauven said: “Many of the laws that make our drinking and bathing water safe, our air cleaner, our fishing industry more sustainable and our climate safer now hang by a thread… There is a very real fear that Cameron’s successor will come from the school that supports a bonfire of anti-pollution protections.”


Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

25 COMMENTS

  1. @OP – Regulations set in place to help fight climate change and protect Britain’s wildlife may be destroyed following the Brexit result, top environmentalists have warned.

    That is what brexit is about” De-regulation to facilitate reckless and ruthless exploitation of resources and people for profit!

    Farage is a science denier, and so are many of the Tory right wing nutty fringe who are brexit supporters!

  2. Brexit won, get over it. that’s democracy.

    this is just another indie/guardian leftie liberal propaganda.

    What does any of this have to do with atheism and humanism?

  3. Brexit won, get over it. that’s democracy
    what does any of this have to do with atheism and humanism

    It has pretty much everything to do with atheism and humanism. We need a clean world to be atheists and humanists on, and most of the posters on here are against foolish anti-science sentiments as spouted by the idiots who have sabotaged the futures of young people in Britain. It will give me no pleasure to be proved right as the next few years unfold. Democracy is at its weakest when it’s used to make decisions that people don’t understand the consequences of because the information they are given is so poor, and so poorly dissected by the press before the vote. Brexit won because a lot of voters felt they were giving a vote of no confidence in the current government and didn’t realise that voting to leave Europe would mean that we would leave Europe. As an educator I have to take some responsibility for the electoral immaturity of our population that let them be led by the nose by unscrupulous and ambitious politicians.

    Sorry everyone.

  4. A section from the “about” link on this website:

    The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation is to promote scientific literacy and a secular worldview. Some might see this as two distinct missions: 1) Teaching the value of science, and 2) Advancing secularism.

    Yes, those are my foundation’s goals. You will not be surprised to learn that my personal priority is science as one of the highest and most aesthetically rewarding achievements of the human spirit.

    But permit me to trace the connection between science and the other preoccupation of my foundation, the advancement of secularism. I see those goals as interrelated and mutually reinforcing.

    You are well familiar with the existential challenges of global climate change and unsustainable population growth facing mankind and the planet. Of all the forces opposing an evidence-based response, religion is the most active — and it is especially strong in America.

    Religious extremism not only interferes with the advance of science but with personal freedoms and human dignity, and not only in places where jihadists hold sway but in America as well, in areas such as access to contraception, LGBTQ rights and women’s equality.
    Critical thinking is the real saviour of humankind. My foundation promotes respect for people who hold critical thinking as a cherished personal value and use it in day-to-day life.

  5. LaurieB, you read my mind. I was about to helpfully do exactly what you’ve did here as a public service. I’m glad I saw your post before I posted my redundancy.

  6. Steven007

    Yes, it’s quite a handy feature having that “about” section right there. No need to be taking potshot guesses as to the actual purpose of this website. 🙂

  7. anton #2
    Jun 28, 2016 at 4:41 pm

    Brexit won, get over it. that’s democracy.

    Votes from the ignorant, spoon-fed fraudulent information by the media, has nothing to do with representational democracy.

    The Olympic committee takes medals back from cheats!

    Representational democracy is (supposed to be) about elected politicians, seeking expert advice and acting in the best interests of their electors.

    Brexit is going nowhere until parliament has passed the enabling resolutions.

    If the majority of MPs who campaigned to remain in the EU had any guts, they would be over-ruling this, or legislating for a second honest referendum, with proper built in safeguards.

    Apparently Farage is on record with a plot to try for a second referendum if the “leave” campaign lost.

    The Scots are planning a second referendum, if that’s what it takes to stay with Europe.
    Meanwhile Corbin is making noises about “defending employment legislation and human rights, while doing sod-all and obstructing other in his party, while the pro-Europe Tories are preparing to hand the country to the lying cheating brexiteers!

  8. headswapboy and Alan4discussion

    You both seem to have contempt for the vote when it doesn’t go your way, and a superiority complex over the ‘stupid’ masses who went and voted Brexit or will go and vote for Trump.

    But that’s not the case. You should be more consistent and say that you do not believe in democracy if it doesn’t go your way.

    its unclear to me how Nigel Farage is anti scientific, But it doesn’t matter much, Brexit is not principally about Farage’s views on science, whatever they may be.

    LaurieB – are you a Marxist-Leninist of some type?

  9. Apparently Farage is on record with a plot to try for a second referendum if the “leave” campaign lost.

    It wasn’t only Boris who saw the attractions of a second referendum. So did Nigel Farage. Speaking to the Mirror he said this:

    “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”

    It’s fair to say he meant a 52-48 win for Remain rather than that very vote for Leave. But, you may think, what’s sauce for the Goose…

    Second referenda have been done before, where ther is politcal will and effort!
    Ireland to held second referendum on Lisbon Treaty and a second referendum on the Maastricht Treaty was held in Denmark on 18 May 1993, after rejecting the treaty in a referendum the previous year.

  10. anton #9
    Jun 28, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    You both seem to have contempt for the vote when it doesn’t go your way,

    I have great contempt for dishonest charlatans and delusional idiots, running campaigns of lies!

    and a superiority complex over the ‘stupid’ masses who went and voted Brexit or will go and vote for Trump.

    The masses were conned by liars who told them that dire warnings from experts, were a fear campaign and scaremongering! ( Just like smokers were told that cancer warnings were dubious scaremongering, and climate change deniers pretend that climate scientists are scaremongering “alarmists”!)

    If I find some old lady is being conned, I don’t say “I respect you decision to send your credit card details to Nigerian fraudsters”.
    Out of respect for her rights, I ask her wait , reconsider, and call the fraud squad to investigate!

    But that’s not the case. You should be more consistent and say that you do not believe in democracy if it doesn’t go your way.

    Challenging dishonesty and promoting the best interests of the people, has nothing to do with “believing” in some perversion of democracy. Referenda are the last resort of the incompetent politician who is ducking responsibility, and does not care about the outcome!

    This one was a reckless gamble by Cameron to keep his nutty right wing from defecting to UKIP, losing him his parliamentary majority.

    its unclear to me how Nigel Farage is anti scientific, But it doesn’t matter much, Brexit is not principally about Farage’s views on science, whatever they may be.

    You really should do your homework!

    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/03/11/nigel-farage-on-climate-change-in-his-own-words/
    Nigel Farage is a man who could hold the balance of power in UK politics after this year’s General Election.

    He’s the leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), and currently sitting as a member of the European Parliament.

    These – and 96 other policies – are outlined in an article by the party on its website.

    Number 53 is its plan to abolish the UK energy and climate department.

    Number 78 is to repeal the UK climate change act, which UKIP claims costs the UK economy “£18n” a year.

    The full interview is well worth a read. But for those interested in what line a future British government with elements of UKIP in it would take on climate change… the best quotes are below.

    “My boys, who were spoonfed climate change all through school, used to think it was hilarious when I ranted at the Six O’Clock News about that bloody iceberg and that bloody polar bear HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.”

    Climate science – “I haven’t got a clue whether climate change is being driven by carbon-dioxide emissions.”

    “I think wind energy is the biggest collective economic insanity I’ve seen in my entire life. I’ve never seen anything more stupid, more illogical, or more irrational.”

    Onshore wind energy, is of course the lowest cost per KW of any energy generation system feeding to national grid! – but don’t let any facts get in the way of Nigel’s blitherings!
    He is even too stupid to know when he is lying!

    I’ve never seen anything more stupid, more illogical, or more irrational.”

    (Except an image several thousand fold more irrational and stupid when he looks in the mirror! 🙂 )

  11. anton

    are you a Marxist-Leninist of some type?

    As far as I know I’m not any type of Marxist-Leninist but I’m sure you will explain to me that voting for H. Clinton would immediately mark me as one of them. At the current time I can think of many worse things to be than a Marxist-Leninist.

  12. anton #2
    Jun 28, 2016 at 4:41 pm

    What does any of this have to do with atheism and humanism?

    Humanism is about looking after the best interests of people! – Even the ones who are being conned into shooting themselves in the foot and are too clueless to notice yet!

  13. I see while the brexiteers are celebrating their “success” in the referendum, reality is starting to kick in and confront them with the homework they didn’t do before giving fanciful grandiose assurances and falsely claiming warnings were scaremongering!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222

    The European Union’s top trade official says the UK cannot begin negotiating terms for doing business with the bloc until after it has left.

    “First you exit then you negotiate,” Cecilia Malmstrom told BBC Newsnight.

    After Brexit, the UK would become a “third country” in EU terms, she said – meaning trade would be carried out based on World Trade Organisation rules until a new deal was complete.

    A recent trade deal with Canada took seven years to negotiate.

    The Canadian agreement will also require ratification by all EU countries, adding another one to two years before it takes effect.

    Ms Malmstrom, the EU Trade Commissioner, underlined that detailed talks to shape the UK’s new trading relationship with the EU should not start until after the process of leaving politically, under an Article 50 process lasting up to two years.

    “There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is,” she said.

    The referendum – which of course we take note of and respect – has no legal effect. First there has to be notification, which the next prime minister will do, I hope swiftly. And then that process can start.”

    There is concern in the City that having to do business for years under WTO rules could be disastrous for the UK’s service industries.

    Asked whether sticking to such a process wouldn’t harm the economies of all EU members, Ms Malmstrom replied: “Yes, but the vote was very clear.”

    She said she was “saddened” that the UK – which has traditionally defended the principle of free trade – is leaving the EU.

    Under EU law, the bloc cannot negotiate a separate trade deal with one of its own members, hence the commissioner’s insistence that the UK must first leave.

    It is also against EU law for a member to negotiate its own trade deals with outsiders, which means the UK cannot start doing this until after it has left the EU.

    Taken at face value, these rules mean the UK cannot conduct its own trade talks for up to two years – a fearsome challenge to any prime minister trying to deliver Brexit.

    EU officials say the UK’s options will soon refine themselves into a Norway-style package that keeps Britain within the single market – subject to EU rules and regulations – or a bespoke “third country” deal on the pattern of Canada’s.

    They agree that because British businesses are already compliant with EU rules and regulations, choosing to remain within the single market would be “a little quicker”, than negotiating a deal like Canada’s.

    But even a Norway-style single market access deal, they caution, could take years to negotiate, leaving the UK trading on WTO terms in the meantime.

    I see Boris has now dropped out leaving some other Tory mug to try to sort out this mess and either back out, or fail!
    Gove is thick enough to jump in with both wellies, and his past record would indicate as he thinks he can doggedly dictate terms, as he has no vision or understanding of how practical negotiations work!

  14. So what position does the Richard Dawkins Foundation have on fracking anyway? Is it safe, dangerous, or is the jury still out? I have my own opinion, as a relatively uneducated layperson, but I’m curious what the Foundation thinks of it.

  15. David Kettle #20
    Jun 30, 2016 at 7:50 pm

    So what position does the Richard Dawkins Foundation have on fracking anyway? Is it safe, dangerous, or is the jury still out? I have my own opinion, as a relatively uneducated layperson, but I’m curious what the Foundation thinks of it.

    As far as I know, RDFS does not have a stated position, although they support moves to carbon neutral systems and other methods of stabilising the climate.

    Fracking is slightly less CO2 polluting than coal, but it is still a major source of CO2 and methane leaks.

    There have been various discussions on energy policy such as this one:-

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2015/12/what-just-happened-in-solar-is-a-bigger-deal-than-oil-exports/

  16. Anton @ # 2.

    Brexit won, get over it. that’s democracy.

    Democracy? How is an opinion poll more democratic than informed discussion and debate in parliament?

  17. anton #9
    Jun 28, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    headswapboy and Alan4discussion

    You both seem to have contempt for the vote when it doesn’t go your way, and a superiority complex over the ‘stupid’ masses who went and voted Brexit or will go and vote for Trump.

    Those who decide to shoot before they have identified a target ARE stupid! – Especially if the discover the aim is pointing directly at their own feet but they still decide that a decision to shoot is a decision to shoot, so some target may turn up in a month or two or a year or two!

    The brexiteers and their following, have decided to jump overboard from the EU, but still weeks later, have no definition of what brexit means, where such a decision leads, or how to salvage and recover the trade deals they have decided to throw away!

    Yep! Brexit is stupidity in spades, in the face of contra advice from a whole list of expert bodies!
    Informed evidence based views, ARE superior to fanaticist, reckless, ignorance, where serious consequences are involved whatever chanting air-head journalists repeat on a daily basis!

  18. As with much in politics, the cavalier politicians get expert advice AFTER they have made daft decisions while wallowing in ignorance and deception, and messed up big-time!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37238641
    ‘Glaring deficiencies’ in EU debate, Electoral Reform Society says

    The EU referendum campaign was dogged by “glaring democratic deficiencies” with voters turned off by big name politicians and negative campaigning, a report says.

    The Electoral Reform Society attacked both sides of the referendum campaign, saying people felt “ill-informed” by the “dire” debate.

    The society said the impact of political leaders had been “minimal”.

    It called for a “root and branch” review of the way referendums are run.

    Recommendations made by the society in its report include having a public body intervene when “misleading” claims are made by campaigns, reviewing broadcasters’ role and publishing a “rule book” to govern conduct by campaigns.

    However – stupidity being what it is, the politicians may well continue blustering and press on regardless, rather than identifying and correcting their mistakes!

    After all!
    Some of the “liars for brexit” have now been given key government posts!

  19. Alan4discussion #8
    Jun 28, 2016 at 5:20 pm
    >

    Votes from the ignorant, spoon-fed fraudulent information by the media, has nothing to do with representational democracy.

    Representational democracy is (supposed to be) about elected politicians, seeking expert advice and acting in the best interests of their electors.

    Brexit is going nowhere until parliament has passed the enabling resolutions.
    If the majority of MPs who campaigned to remain in the EU had any guts, they would be over-ruling this, or legislating for a second honest referendum, with proper built in safeguards.

    So moving on from 2016, the brexiteers still can’t agree among themselves about, coherent plans, environmental standards, anticipated outcomes, or consequences, but it is obvious that they seek opportunities for opportunist rip-off artists, – and continue to ignore expert sources of specialist professional advice from numerous sectors of the economy!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44144296

    The government has suffered its 15th defeat in the House of Lords over the EU Withdrawal Bill.

    Peers voted by a majority of 50 to say the government should set up a body to maintain EU standards of environmental protection after Brexit.

    Lord Krebs, who instigated the move, argued that while EU rules would be carried over into UK law, environmental principles underpinning them would not.

    Ministers had promised a consultation on the issue but lost by 294 to 244.

    Clearly, it is FAR too late in the day, to be STARTING consultations, which should have taken place many months ago, BEFORE legislation was brought to be voted on!

    MPs will decide whether to reverse the measure when the bill returns to the House of Commons. Peers are debating the third reading of the Bill, the last chance for them to propose changes to the legislation.

    The cross-party amendment backed by peers is designed to ensure EU environmental principles continue to have a basis in domestic law at the end of the post-Brexit transition period in December 2020.

    It requires the environment secretary to bring forward proposals for primary legislation to create a duty on public authorities to apply these principles, and to establish an independent public body to ensure compliance.

    Lord Krebs, the former chair of the Food Standards Agency, said he was “not satisfied” with the idea of a consultation and wanted guarantees that existing principles will continue to apply and be enforced.

    “We have heard many times that the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that everything is the same the day after Brexit as it was the day before,” he said.

    “Yet for environmental protection things will not be the same. We’re talking about the protection of our air quality, our water quality, rivers, oceans, habitats and biodiversity.”

    Now why do brexiteers remind me of Trump? – who is still a great fan of the clueless FARAGE! – now ensconced in delusional employment in the fantasy world of Fox-News!

Leave a Reply