Environment
These regulations aim to promote sustainable development and protect the environment.
You can find all 278 regulations that relate to environment here [opens in new window].
For ease of commenting we have broken these regulations into the following seven areas:
Under the current climate change issues I believe none of the environmental regulations should be discarded. On the contrary, many more should be created.
The LAST thing we need is more Environmental Legislation. I am responsible for ensuring compliance for a company employing around 300 people & have wasted many fruitless hours trwaling through the current legislation in an effort to ensure we are compliant and finsihed up no wiser than when I started. There are too many regulations and they are too complex. We need to reduce & simplify the regulations so that they are understandable & then companies will be able to comply. As it stands at the moment we give it our best shot but to be honest we get by on a wing and a prayer because the complexity of the legislation makes it almost impossible to do anything else.
I notice that whilst travelling back to Scotland once a year there is a huge number of wind farms sprouting from numerous available hillsides and whilst I understand the need for sustainable power, these barnacles are ruining perfectly good countryside for very questionable returns. I live in Dartford, Kent and also note the distinct lack of any windfarms blotting the landscape, they are instead sent offshore where there is, evidently, more wind. What is the problem of doing the same with windfarms in Scotland, or is that to expensive a proposition for a country with lots of wind, rain and hills!
Energy performance Certificates as soon to be required by Sefl Catering Holiday Lets. This is a costly, meaningless regulation. Holiday chalets, caravans, mobile homes are exempt. I can let a house for up to four months but cannot let a holiday apartment for a week without a certificate.
We have world leading climate legislation. There was a cross party consensus behind it when it was voted on. It’s not red tape its a framework for stabilising our climate and our energy supply. Scrapping it would be grossly irresponsible.
It promotes the CO2 fraud. It should have been repealed immediately on taking office.
It is vastly important that environmental regulations serve to protect that which makes up our environment; air, atmosphere, seas, habitats, countryside etc. These regulations must be strong and effective so that the environment is protected for young and future generations.
The Climate Change Act is just one example of legislation that works to incorporate long-term thinking into decision-making and should be heralded for the role it can play in safeguarding the future.
To repeal legislation that serves to counter the short-termism that diseases our politics with self-interest and renders decision makers unable to live up to the responsibility to look ahead to the future for generations to come is morally reprehensible.
If present day politicians think about the legacy they leave behind in terms of quarterly figures only, then they expose themselves as being incapable of acting in the interests of all those whom they are meant to govern, including future generations.
I believe that a huge impact could be made on planning to allow those most affected to be financially compensated by the developer. Establishing this as a legitimate operation seems fair as long as it is known about. All too often the immediate neighbours are left out when panning gain occurs and they pay the highest price. Compensation for the loss or inconvenience etc would hopefully ease the passing of many a time consuming planning application and be far fairer.
The assumption that regulation is a nuisance does not hold for environmental regulation where the absence of controls brings about nuisance in the form of poor air quality, noise and exposes us to multiple economic, social and environmental problems associated with climate change. Compared to the magnitude of the problems little is being done to protect the environment and it is vital that we do not make things any worse than they are now. We only get one chance to protect many things such as biodiversity and these have a value to business as much as to the next generation.
This is the most ludicrous challenge ever, Greenest Government Ever fail,
The Climate Change Act 2008, gives the UK a strong position on the international stage. It is not a short-time economic fix, but one that future generations (future voters) depend on, scientists say that an 80%+ cut in emissions is needed, fossil fuels have past their peak; the UK government has done something that the UNFCCC have been trying for 18 years to do and you want to scrap it within 3?
Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000, scrapping this, is part of you privatising everything plan isn’t it? Remember Kinder Scout in 1932.
What I think is really unfortunate, is that you think everyone understands every act, how they relate and how they can be scrapped/ arranged.
Why not create new jobs in which people can asses acts, streamline them and talk to related organisations/ businesses so everyone gets the best deal.
And not lets face it, cut acts that people in the past have fought for.
This is ridiculous- if these acts aim to promote sustainable development and protect the environment why would you think to scrap them????!!!! There is a need for more protection in these areas and not for less….
Protect the Climate Change Act – don’t scrap it! This is ridiculous short-termist thinking which will backfire in the long run and takes no account for the views of future generations. We need to uphold the act that your MPs voted for, as a 80% emission reduction by 2050 shows that UK has the legislation to back up its long term political stance on environmental matters. Stop trying to make this about ‘red tape’ George.
Until the rest of the world care, I.e, China. Then we should not
… and where does most of your ‘stuff’ come from? China! We are complicit in what China has become.
Being new to breeding captive bred birds of prey specifically Goshawks in my case and trying to establish a small time breeding project into a small business. I have found that the recently impsosed by red tape by the governing body Animal Health regarding the withdrawl of semi complete article 10s and a substantial increase in registration fees have made things not only more difficult, complicated and costly for the breeders of birds of prey. The implications for small time breeders like myself through the increased red tape, imposed by Animal Health has been enough to sway my ideas about wanting to progress and turn my venture into a business enterprise. I have lost faith in Animal Health with all the bureaucracy they have imposed and all done withthout any consultation, I am trusting the government will stand by its pledge and sort this mess out.
Before committing to further large scale wind power projects the government should publish the PREDICTED maximum annual output of each wind farm, the ACTUAL annual output of each wind farm and the cost of each unit of electricity from each wind farm taking into account construction costs, running costs, depreciation and removal of the wind turbines at the end of their useful life. These figures could be compared with the cost of modern nuclear plants and gas plants.
I am a breeder of Annex A species, the Wildlife and Countryside Act was formulated to protect such species and control the keeping of such when it was difficult to prove progeny stated as being “captive bred” was indeed that but with the advances in DNA testing I can prove beyond doubt what I breed is in fact 100% captive bred and when that offspring is second generation captive bred, recognised by Cites as “domesticated” why should I be regulated in a way that is costly to both myself and the British tax payer. These regulations can also criminalise law abiding people for paperwork offenses which I feel is wrong, penalties should be directly related to offenses against wildlife, not paperwork offenses relating to captive bred specimens as captive breeding has massve benefits for the conservation of wild populations. This situation should be reviewed by Government.
Any legislation which is not enshrined in EU law should be scrapped because it is superfluous.
windpower projects do not make scientific or economic sense. There should be no government support for windpower projects.
Why is this necessary in a year of national austerity?
Because air conditioning is just throwing lots of energy at your overheating problem. It’s relatively cheap, and easy to commission, but it will cost you a fortune in electricity every year, and add to environmental damage.
More difficult to commission, but cheaper in the long run, is to install external shading (once the sunlight comes through the glass, you’ve lost the battle). Often it’s a poorly insulated flat roof that is the problem. If the heat of the sun penetrates to the ceiling below, that radiant heat will make you sweat!
I bet your unbearably hot room/office is also hard to keep warm on cold winter days.
Most requirements should be made advisory rather than mandatory, ie use ‘should’ instead of ‘must’ to allow the freedom to use common sense instead of the dictatorial stance currently enforced by jobsworths.
Before spending billions of our hard earned money, could you please have an open mind on Climate Change, the science is not settled, most of our European neighbours have scaled back their wind power projects etc. Please take the time to spend our money wisely i.e. not on technology that is unproven and wasteful
We are in danger of generating a tick box society in which no thought is allowed. Currently regulators apply disproportionate rules to all sorts of environmental situations, because either they do not have the necessary practical technical expertise and/or the situation does not allow them to tick the required box. Regulators need to have experience of real situations, not just the theoretical ideal, and deal with matters propotionately, with sufficient technical skill and expertise to make informed decisions about the real world, without fear that they are not doing their job.