Featured post

10,000,000 Miles in a Nissan Leaf?

Thursday, 16 January 2014

That's Not Good

I have visited the goings on at the American "equivalent" (OK it's different but in broad terms the analogy stands up) of The Environment Agency before here.

It does the environmental movement no favors (at all) to be seen to be conniving with public servants to subvert proper process and skew the essential objectivity required in the operation of a public body.

I'm not directly accusing the Environment Agency of similar antics here because I don't have detail evidence -  the circumstantial evidence of the EA's action / and particularly inaction frankly speaks for itself particularly in relation to enhanced gas recovery. 

As far as the USA is concerned this article is certainly alarming in detailing the unholy conniving and intrigue going on behind the scenes. Predictably Watts Up With That has a post on the matter

From the tiny interactions <sarc> we've had with the sprawling dysfunctional EA it wouldn't surprise us at all if activist pressure groups are promoted up the hierarchy of stakeholders simply because of their targeted lobbying and the presence of activists actually operating within the organisation.  Some comments have been left on the previous post about the management of the River Thames which indicate that narrow interest environmental pressure has been given undue influence in the management of that waterway - with a predictable and bad outcome. The same applies for the (lack of) management of the River Parrett in Somerset.

It's a free country - but there are rules about how public bodies operate - and when those rules are not applied and there is no sanction for misbehaviour (or non performance!) - at all - I suppose one can hardly be surprised at the outcome.....

EA subversion of the regulatory process is something we have direct experience of here at Avoncliff - allowing "stakeholders" to negotiate in private, commit money and attempt policy changes, all with no real statutory / legal review (unless you JR them)  or even for that matter any effective political control - the EA is out of control and many of its senior managers have an agenda and the public interest is close to the bottom of it....

The frequency of corruption at an organisation has to be related to the likelihood of detection and the consequences of being caught -  the EA has as far as we're aware zeros at present in the detection and consequences boxes.

The evidence presently indicates EA policies hinder the economy, increase the cost of energy, eliminate jobs, and do little or nothing to improve the environment. Although some would argue on the definition of "improving the environment".

If only we could divert the River Avon in flood through Horizon House - it might have some effect....

I note that as ever there's two sides to any story and Damian Carrington at the U.K. 's Gurdian newspaper has announced that the U.K. government ministry DECC ( Department of Energy and Climate Change ) is "an arm of the gas industry" - which is quite a leap if one looks at their antics on the behalf (and string-less funding ) of Greenpeace, Friends of The Earth, WWF and other environmental NGO outfits.

Oh... and Damian and Guardian newspapers  AFAIK forgot to mention the US EPA stuff where millions of dollars have been funneled fraudulently into green activist NGOs by their mates inside the EPA - funny that eh?



4 comments:

  1. So the USA has a similar problem. Internal interest groups pushing their own agendas. Fisheries officers who demand ridiculous fish passes claiming a new man made naturalistic fish pass 500m long will be better than cleaning up the river and putting a simple fish pass at the weir, where most of the fish end up. There is no consistency between regions and little within the regions between areas. There is no accountability and no one is willing to tell an officer that what they are proposing is not feasible. The average officer has little or no understanding of cost. Budgetry control does not exist in the EA. The average officer has no concept of what anything costs. Big business love the EA, they quote for a project and as the project progresses Officers realise they had not thought of something important, this gets added but it is not in the original project definition so is an add on. In some cases the forgotten bits and changes end up costing more than the original budget. Big business love it because the EA is their cash cow.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We are now getting the Class of 2013 appearing at sites. Training the average EA officer takes 2-3 years but by then they have been promoted unless totally incompetent and then you are stuck with an idiot for years. A few will be stuck in post because they showed initiative and common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just read the letter from JOHN SWEENEY saying the BAXINDALE report could be used in a criminal action against EA officers. So the EA have spent £611.000 pounds covering up criminal actions of officers. And I bet if they say £611.000 that is on the shy side , Where is the justification in this wasted money !

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi! nice post. Well what can I say is that these is an interesting and very informative topic. Thanks for sharing.solar energy

    ReplyDelete

Get it off yer chest - please keep it civil