The UN’s climate decree is rich coming from an organisation whose most impactful achievement was handing the global drug trade to cartels - fuelling violence, corruption, and a booming black market across the world.

This “advisory opinion” is just more hot air - ironically, adding to the problem.

If they did try to pass a impactful resolution I bet a permanent member of the UN Security Council would just veto it.

The UN has no teeth and even if it did the teeth are sitting in a glass of water on the bedside table while the UN sleeps

Here in the UK we can not even stop water companies from allowing polluting the environment.

Here in the UK we can not even stop water companies from allowing polluting the environment.

We could stop them, but unfortunately politicians seem to be always tripping over a loose brown envelope for some reason or some other unexplainable thing.

I mean, if government really wants to do something, they can.

"I mean, if government really wants to do something, they can."

Bahahahahahahahahaha!!! Oh wait, you're serious!

But really, as with a lot of things the water pollution issue has actually been trending in the correct direction. UK rivers are generally in a much better state than 40 years ago and you're not seeing turds bobbing about in the sea.

If the govt wanted to do something they could allow water companies to object to planning applications.

I saw someone claim on another platform that the UK has 'done nothing' about climate change over the last few decades so I pointed out that since 1995 the country has halved its CO2 emissions. They deleted their post :)

"But really, as with a lot of things the water pollution issue has actually been trending in the correct direction. UK rivers are generally in a much better state than 40 years ago and you're not seeing turds bobbing about in the sea."

Well, that used to be true, over the last few years we've regressed a huge amount, it's decades since I can remember the sea with a large brown streak across it - at least until a couple of years ago, since when it's become increasingly common :(

However the latest legislation is making water company executives personally liable for illegal dumping, rather than there being a small fine (cheaper than treating the sewage) and no monitoring to drive prosecution anyway.

In that time we've built a LOT of new housing and paved over a huge amount of land and all that extra waste water and runoff has to go somewhere.

The water companies cannot say 'we do not have the capacity yet to allow that building'. The water treatment capacity has always lagged.

Not far from me is a new proposed development yet the water co has to use a fleet of tanker trucks to stop sewage escaping into the local river as the infrastructure cannot cope any more. But the council still wants to approve the new housing. And the new school that they built flooded even before it opened.

But they also haven't built a single resevoir since they were privatised.

They were privatised on the promise of investment in aging pipework, they haven't invested in said pipework and are claiming their woes are the fault of the infrastructure they promised to upgrade, and then didn't.

I'll give them some credit in that Brexit has screwed them over as well, but it's the lack of monitoring and penalty combined with the "shareholders first, nothing else matters" approach which is truly at fault.

Something as essential as water supply shouldn't have been privatised in the first place, certainly not into a for profit company.

We've had this conversation before...

"But they also haven't built a single resevoir since they were privatised."

True, but not through want of trying - the water companies have tried to, and been blocked by the planning authorities (i.e. the state)

If I recall, the last reservoir to open in England was Carsington in 1991. Thames Water have been trying to build Abingdon reservoir for about 20 years.

"They were privatised on the promise of investment in aging pipework, they haven't invested in said pipework"

Following privatisation, there was an initial cut in water leakage (by about a third: claimed by the water companies and fact checked as true by the BBC) There appears to have been no great improvement since then, but they clearly did invest in pipework and cut leakage.

In London the sewer system was built to a design by Joseph Bazalgette. The system opened in 1865 (though if I recall the history, wasn't fully finished for another 10 years). It intercepted the sewerage that poured into the Thames as it passed through London, and transported it to the east...where it dumped it, untreated, into the Thames. The population of London at that time was <3 million

That was changed in 1878, after the Princess Alice disaster (don't read about that if you are about to eat), when they built primary treatment before dumping the waste at sea.

There were no significant improvements in sewer capacity thereafter, prior to privatisation. In 1990 (around privatisation), London's population was about 7.5 milllon.

Thames Tideway has changed that, adding the first significant increase in sewer capacity to London. Planning for the scheme started around about year 2000 (so just after they did the initial fixing of water pipes), and it opened earlier this year.

Under the 'state owned' water system, UK coastal towns dumped screened but unprocessed raw sewerage directly off the beaches through short-fall sea outlets. After privatisation (and because of a change in the law) the private water companies extended these to long outfalls (quick fix), then built treatment centres to enable dumping at sea to stop,

The 'state owned' water companies used to routinely dump sewage sludge at sea - that seems to have been brought to an end (internationally - it wasn't just the UK that did it) by the London Convention of 1972, with progressive phasing out, though in London, it continued until 1998, and it seems to have been done elsewhere in the UK; eg, Glasgow:

https://ss-shieldhall.co.uk/the-ship/history-of-the-glasgow-sludge-fleet/#:~:text=Dumping%20of%20Glasgow%E2%80%99s%20sludge%20at%20sea%20goes%20back,at%20Dalmarnock%20%281894%29%2C%20Dalmuir%20%281904%29%20and%20Shieldhall%20%281910%29.

"it's the lack of monitoring"

Which is back-to-front.

The privatised companies in England ARE monitored for sewage discharges into rivers - that's why we have stories reporting them.

From section 81 of part 5 of the Environment Act 2021:

141DBMonitoring quality of water potentially affected by discharges from storm overflows and sewage disposal works

(1)A sewerage undertaker whose area is wholly or mainly in England must continuously monitor the quality of water upstream and downstream of an asset within subsection (2) for the purpose of obtaining the information referred to in subsection (3).

(2)The assets referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a)a storm overflow of the sewerage undertaker, and

(b)sewage disposal works comprised in the sewerage system of the sewerage undertaker,

where the storm overflow or works discharge into a watercourse.

(3)The information referred to in subsection (1) is information as to the quality of the water by reference to—

(a)levels of dissolved oxygen,

(b)temperature and pH values,

(c)turbidity,

(d)levels of ammonia, and

(e)anything else specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

It appears to be the state owned water company in Scotland that isn't required to monitor and report it's activities, and which thus can discharge with impunity.

https://phys.org/news/2025-07-uk-pollution-alarms-summer-bathers.html

From your link:

"The Southern Water company, which supplies water to 2.6 million people, is allowed to release excess wastewater into the sea when the network is saturated such as during heavy rains."

So the release is authorised ("is allowed to release") by the regulator, i,e, the state. Do you imagine that the state would be harder on itself if it was the owner/operator of the sewerage system? Or do you think it would be more likely to regulate itself more laxly?

Also, note that that the private company is only allowed to discharge to sea under extreme conditions - prior to privatisation, the municipal water companies discharged waste to sea continually, as standard operational practice.

Read the rest of the article.

This is allowed up to a certain point.

Private water companies have crossed that point.

Gosh.

Will that be followed by a sternly-worded letter ?

And after three SWL, what do you get ? A black star on your notebook ?

Thank god.

Ah yes - the oft-quoted Maldives, an island state so terrified of impending climate change that it is busily building more resorts than ever before, and has spent the last 5 years building an airport terminal 10 times the size of the existing one, and an enormous new seaplane terminal to cope with all of the tourists coming in on their long-haul flights... Yes, they're definitely terrified, terrified I tell you... or maybe they just smell their latest cash-cow...

Hammer Nail Head! Unfortunately this truth is glanced over by the entire man made climate change lemmings and best of all they get their nickers in a twist if you point this out.

Since you apparently know what the Maldives Govt are doing (or work for them), kindly let us know how they're planning to deal with the waste water and sewage disposal from all these new resorts and the tourists they'll attract. Come to that, where is the drinking, flushing and recreational water for those new resorts coming from? These questions should always be fully answered by those planning new cities, industry or resorts situated anywhere that land area and/or fresh water sources are limited.

The only place I know that has given serious thought to where its water is coming from and how it should be conserved and treated is Abu Dhabi. This city is built on a huge, deep sand deposit sitting on the seabed and is totally without access to any naturally available water, so its water cycle looks light this:

1: Sea water is distilled using locally extracted oil and the distilled water is piped to the many parks in the city

2: The distilled water, which tastes unpleasantly flat, is aerated by running it though the splendid illuminated fountains in all the parks

3: The aeriated water is collected from the fountains, fed into the citiy's clean water mains and used for drinking, cooking and washing

4: The used washing water is collected by the city's dirty water sewers and recycled by using it to flush toilets

5: The sewage is piped to sand farms just outside the city, where it is used to grow food

I've spent a fair amount of time in Abu Dhabi and can confirm that this scheme works extremely well (at least until their oil runs out), so I now consider that this system is the minimum that should be used in any place near the sea that lacks a reliable fresh water source capable of fully supplying all its current and planned fresh water requirements.

Not got local oil wells? I think same system should work equally well if driven by a small nuke or, for that matter, from solar mirrors in almost any hot seaside desert location such as Namibia.

Governments like the US and Russia will just ignore it. For them, it won't work.

If it actually worked, and any regime was forced to ration energy at the expense of jobs, aircon or day-to-day life, they would be rapidly jettisoned from power at their next election and replaced by folk like Reform, who would not only ignore the UN, but do a lot less than the regimes they were replacing in terms of green policies.

So it is unlikely to have been worth the effort in the first place. They may have been better off actually creating technologies and materials that we can switch to, reducing our carbon footprints, or just planting trees.

Andrew 'Trail of Tears' Jackson may (or may not, it's not clear) have said in response to a ruling by the US Supreme Court: "The Chief Justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it." The lack of enforcement on that ruling led directly to the Trail of Tears, the forced ethnic cleansing of Cherokee, Seminole, and other undesirables from Georgia and Florida and places adjacent to 'The Indian Nations', what is now Oklahoma. There would be a _reason_ why there are still Seminoles and Cherokee in Oklahoma. And why the majority of the Indian Nations supported the Confederacy in the War of the Slaver Rebellion. The last Confederate general officer to surrender to the Union was Stand Watie, a Cherokee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_Watie The memories of Andy Jackson encouraged him and his troops to fight on when the white boys packed it in. Though there were some Texans in his force; the cowboys were on the same side as the Indians, for once.

The court has made its ruling. Now let it enforce it. Time to get out the popcorn. The non-enforcement will have consequences...