No overnight wild camping on part of Dartmoor, doe this affect dark sky access?

[tomato]

Just seen this on the BBC news:

Historic wild camping tradition outlawed on part of Dartmoor https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64238116
 

Does this in any way restrict overnight access to dark skies in this location I wonder, given that protest hikes have been under the banner of “Starry skies belong to everyone”?

[cajen2]

I've already started a thread on this in the Lounge ("Yet another freedom lost"). This insidious and gradual removal of rights makes my blood boil.

[Franklin]

I think it only refers to one part of Dartmoor and you could argue that stargazing is not camping at all. Getting out of the car in the middle of the night and setting up a scope is a lot different from pitching a tent and bedding down for the night. Sad though nonetheless, Dartmoor has been the only place in the country that has allowed wild camping and it's great waking up to see wild ponies grazing!

[tomato]

11 minutes ago, Franklin said:

I think it only refers to one part of Dartmoor and you could argue that stargazing is not camping at all. Getting out of the car in the middle of the night and setting up a scope is a lot different from pitching a tent and bedding down for the night. Sad though nonetheless, Dartmoor has been the only place in the country that has allowed wild camping and it's great waking up to see wild ponies grazing!

That would be my argument, if there is no tent pitched or any other form of sleeping arrangement present, how can that be wild camping?

Having said that, I have been imaging at a remote location where folks have turned up in the early hours, introduced themselves, had a friendly chat and then declared that they are going to sleep in their car for the rest of the night…

[iantaylor2uk]

I'm not sure there is any argument - for wild camping, surely you need a tent!

If you are out simply observing and using a telescope then of course it isn't wild camping.

[Franklin]

Exactly. What if you were driving over Dartmoor at night and the car broke down and you had to spend the rest of the night in your car. Surely that's not breaking any laws?

[tomato]

Perhaps not a good idea to turn up in a camper van for your star gazing session. Anyhow, how is this guy going to police this? According to the article he owns 16 sq km of Dartmoor, but maybe he can afford an army of wardens to patrol it, or is it all done automatically with a few night vision equipped drones?

[allworlds]

From what I have read, the courts accepted the argument that camping is not "open-air recreation". Although just one landowner was involved in the court case I think all of Dartmoor's owners could now use this as precedent.

No reasonable person could consider stargazing to not be open-air recreation, but nonetheless I would not be surprised if some landowners feel emboldened to harass or order stargazers away.

 

[Beulah]

The problem is that wild camping is massively popular these days, thanks to social media and influencers. The popularity of this pastime is such that it is having an impact on the relatively small UK wild landscape though littering and fouling.

Such a shame for those who have been discretely wild camping for years, enjoying the wilderness and truly leave no trace to see it trending.

In my line of work it is astonishing to see how much human detritus is left in the landscape - anything from used toilet roll to a complete camp setup abandoned ala music festival style...

I guess it has become so popular that landowners have taken notice...and for those stargazing it might be a case of having to prove you are not kipping on the land...😔

[mikeDnight]

If you could find out who owns what, would it not put a land owners mind at ease if you requested their permission beforehand?  I live a long way from Dartmoor and have never observed there, but whenever I've observed from private land I've always sought the permission of the land owner well in advance. So far I've never been refused, and on one occasion have even had the help of a kind farmers wife,  who thought she'd help my friend and I to see in the dark by shinning a million candlepower Sun in our faces. People can be lovely when shown a little courtesy.  

[saac]

2 hours ago, Beulah said:

The problem is that wild camping is massively popular these days, thanks to social media and influencers. The popularity of this pastime is such that it is having an impact on the relatively small UK wild landscape though littering and fouling.

Such a shame for those who have been discretely wild camping for years, enjoying the wilderness and truly leave no trace to see it trending.

In my line of work it is astonishing to see how much human detritus is left in the landscape - anything from used toilet roll to a complete camp setup abandoned ala music festival style...

I guess it has become so popular that landowners have taken notice...and for those stargazing it might be a case of having to prove you are not kipping on the land...😔

This is exactly the problem, you have hit the nail squarely on the head.  While in Scotland we benefit from the "right to roam" legislation, over the past 10 years or so it has been self evident that we are suffering from over tourism.  We are a small country (and I include the whole of the UK in that ), it is difficult for the environment to survive against the increase in human traffic.  Advertising of our remote and wild places on social media, TV, movies etc have all contributed to increasing footfall; how long is it going to take for us to realise just how fragile these places are.  I do have sympathy for the landowner here. 

Jim  

Edited January 13, 2023 by saac

[pipnina]

On 13/01/2023 at 20:43, saac said:

This is exactly the problem, you have hit the nail squarely on the head.  While in Scotland we benefit from the "right to roam" legislation, over the past 10 years or so it has been self evident that we are suffering from over tourism.  We are a small country (and I include the whole of the UK in that ), it is difficult for the environment to survive against the increase in human traffic.  Advertising of our remote and wild places on social media, TV, movies etc have all contributed to increasing footfall; how long is it going to take for us to realise just how fragile these places are.  I do have sympathy for the landowner here. 

Jim  

I can't remember where, so I don't know how accurately my memory serves, but I think I read/heard that areas in the lake district do their absolute best to keep tourists on specific paths so the sheer volume of people doesn't destroy the very thing they've come to see.

We closed off stone henge with a fence because people kept vandalising it

We can no longer enter the prehistoric caves with the paintings in france (discovered during WW2) because the presence of moisture from human breath and artificial lighting caused plants/moss etc to grow on the walls, slowly destroying the paintings so that we could view them. So they built a replica "next door" and closed off the original to everyone except scientists.

Look at any major tourist / package holiday city before and after the rise of the aeroplane, the effect of the tourism industry is almost always unintentionally destructive.

Best we can do is keep our own impact to a minimum when we visit, and for affected areas to impose limits and controls to preserve what makes them special.

Most of these places only exist as they are once!

[saac]

2 minutes ago, pipnina said:

I can't remember where, so I don't know how accurately my memory serves, but I think I read/heard that areas in the lake district do their absolute best to keep tourists on specific paths so the sheer volume of people doesn't destroy the very thing they've come to see.

We closed off stone henge with a fence because people kept vandalising it

We can no longer enter the prehistoric caves with the paintings in france (discovered during WW2) because the presence of moisture from human breath and artificial lighting caused plants/moss etc to grow on the walls, slowly destroying the paintings so that we could view them. So they built a replica "next door" and closed off the original to everyone except scientists.

Look at any major tourist / package holiday city before and after the rise of the aeroplane, the effect of the tourism industry is almost always unintentionally destructive.

Best we can do is keep our own impact to a minimum when we visit, and for affected areas to impose limits and controls to preserve what makes them special.

Most of these places only exist as they are once!

I must admit I wince when I see adverts for trips to the Arctic/Antarctica or the Himalayas or similar. Closer to home it was with some annoyance that I heard on the radio that the Cairngorm funicular railway is shortly to be back in operation. Perhaps there should be some places that are just excluded from mass tourism, even if only to let them recover for a while. What was that line in the Eagle's "The Last Resort"  

They call it paradise, I don't know why.

You call someplace paradise, Kiss it goodbye.

Jim 

[Shimrod]

1 hour ago, saac said:

I must admit I wince when I see adverts for trips to the Arctic/Antarctica or the Himalayas or similar. Closer to home it was with some annoyance that I heard on the radio that the Cairngorm funicular railway is shortly to be back in operation. Perhaps there should be some places that are just excluded from mass tourism, even if only to let them recover for a while. What was that line in the Eagle's "The Last Resort"  

They call it paradise, I don't know why.

You call someplace paradise, Kiss it goodbye.

Jim 

Oh dear, I've been to all three. Tourism travel in Antarctica has some of the strictest, self-imposed regulations on tourists which were certainly enforced on the trip I was on. Breaching them would be not being allowed off ship for the remainer of the travel. As well as expected, respectful behaviour for the environment, there was also a strict decontamination routine to avoid any accidental transfer of spores or infections into the environment.

 

https://iaato.org/visiting-antarctica/

[saac]

1 hour ago, Shimrod said:

Oh dear, I've been to all three. Tourism travel in Antarctica has some of the strictest, self-imposed regulations on tourists which were certainly enforced on the trip I was on. Breaching them would be not being allowed off ship for the remainer of the travel. As well as expected, respectful behaviour for the environment, there was also a strict decontamination routine to avoid any accidental transfer of spores or infections into the environment.

 

https://iaato.org/visiting-antarctica/

I'm happy to avoid these rare places. It comes down to a personal decision I guess.  If we are aware of and truly accept the damage that we have done then some things need to change, and it will be painful. 

Jim 

[Leo S]

Last time I was on Dartmoor was around 2009 if I recall, and my wife and I were there with cameras set up for the Perseids. We stopped in one of the mini-car parks, but I actually stuck the car just off road, outside the car park (at the end of the car park that was set back from the road) so that it was a bit of a screen to block the road/passing vehicles. I remember there being a sign saying "no overnight camping", but presumably that just referred to the car parking area.

Some way into the night we were payed a visit by a passing patrol car, and I explained to the officers what we were doing, and they were fine with it. They hung around for a bit, observed a few meteors with us, and we compared lasers/tazers - they were intrigued why they could see my laser pointer's green beam so well, but not their own red beams!

[scarp15]

This landowner has closed a popular public carpark as part of this court case. Such places might had been used for stargazing. This parking space is now only available for the estate's organised shooting (pheasant and deer) clients. They (him and his wife) have imposed antagonist measures such as locking access gates, since they took over the running of the estate in 2013. Dartmoor National Park are to put forward an appeal to this ban -  which will be in the interests of stargazers and hikers and cyclists alike. 

 

On 13/01/2023 at 18:23, Beulah said:

The problem is that wild camping is massively popular these days, thanks to social media and influencers. The popularity of this pastime is such that it is having an impact on the relatively small UK wild landscape though littering and fouling.

Such a shame for those who have been discretely wild camping for years, enjoying the wilderness and truly leave no trace to see it trending.

In my line of work it is astonishing to see how much human detritus is left in the landscape - anything from used toilet roll to a complete camp setup abandoned ala music festival style...

I guess it has become so popular that landowners have taken notice...and for those stargazing it might be a case of having to prove you are not kipping on the land...😔

 

On 13/01/2023 at 20:43, saac said:

This is exactly the problem, you have hit the nail squarely on the head.  While in Scotland we benefit from the "right to roam" legislation, over the past 10 years or so it has been self evident that we are suffering from over tourism.  We are a small country (and I include the whole of the UK in that ), it is difficult for the environment to survive against the increase in human traffic.  Advertising of our remote and wild places on social media, TV, movies etc have all contributed to increasing footfall; how long is it going to take for us to realise just how fragile these places are.  I do have sympathy for the landowner here. 

Jim  

 

On 06/02/2023 at 13:38, pipnina said:

I can't remember where, so I don't know how accurately my memory serves, but I think I read/heard that areas in the lake district do their absolute best to keep tourists on specific paths so the sheer volume of people doesn't destroy the very thing they've come to see.

We closed off stone henge with a fence because people kept vandalising it

We can no longer enter the prehistoric caves with the paintings in france (discovered during WW2) because the presence of moisture from human breath and artificial lighting caused plants/moss etc to grow on the walls, slowly destroying the paintings so that we could view them. So they built a replica "next door" and closed off the original to everyone except scientists.

Look at any major tourist / package holiday city before and after the rise of the aeroplane, the effect of the tourism industry is almost always unintentionally destructive.

Best we can do is keep our own impact to a minimum when we visit, and for affected areas to impose limits and controls to preserve what makes them special.

Most of these places only exist as they are once!

It is perhaps necessary to qualify a few facts. 

Dartmoor National Park and the Scottish Highlands as with much of the UK, is extensively over populated by deer; red deer, as is mostly the case in Scotland, roe deer much else where. Unmanaged, deer have severely degraded the ecology of much of our upland landscapes; such as to woodland, peatland and native plant life. On shooting estates such as this on Dartmoor, their numbers are artificially increased yet further. There are efforts such as in Scotland to manage the numbers on certain estates, particularly in conjunction with regeneration projects, but this is resisted by others. 

Next there are outdated grouse moor shooting estates that still practice muirburn; the burning of peat, that besides from the obvious environmental damage incinerates insects, amphibians, native fauna, nesting birds. Traps for small mammals and crows litter all over such estates, Hen Harries are illegally shot, trapped or poisoned.

Roadside camping that got such a bad name, should not be compared to those of us that go out on our bicycles or on foot and wildcamp - as we respect nature, follow a code of conduct and will often pick up any discarded litter on our travels. Certainly there are some who will cause damage i.e. cut down branches off a live tree for a fire that they should not light. But with the exception of a few, it is often the running practices of estates themselves that cause the most harm.  

Lastly its worth mentioning that in England, only 8% of land is actually accessible to the public. As mentioned, Scotland has a legislated Right to Roam act, that follows a code of conduct and it is twenty years old this year. England and Wales need something similar. There are campaigns now (not unlike there were in the 1930's and before the advent of National Parks), that within a few years this potentially will come about. 

Increased and protecting lawful access, enhancing our freedoms is just as meaningful to the astronomy community as it is for other outdoor groups. 

 

On 13/01/2023 at 18:59, mikeDnight said:

If you could find out who owns what, would it not put a land owners mind at ease if you requested their permission beforehand?  I live a long way from Dartmoor and have never observed there, but whenever I've observed from private land I've always sought the permission of the land owner well in advance. So far I've never been refused, and on one occasion have even had the help of a kind farmers wife,  who thought she'd help my friend and I to see in the dark by shinning a million candlepower Sun in our faces. People can be lovely when shown a little courtesy.  

Yes I get that.

The problem in the Dartmoor case is that a common law has been replaced (downgraded) to a permissive regulation. Since the court case, Dartmoor landowners agreed to accepting a fee and that will be annually reviewed, paid for by Defra (in other words the taxpayer and does not take into account all their other public paid entitlements), to permit wildcamping to continue on their land (probably in part because of the Ten Tors Challenge that nearly got cancelled; gaining extensive media publicity) for which in the future could be denied. And guess who has also agreed to this - yes the landowner who went to the trouble to take the National Park to court (who are now paying a heavy court fee) - incredible - maybe, but greed and entitlement yes. It is a very fine balance between our rights and responsibilities as citizens and the less than 1% whom own most of our land. 

Edited February 7, 2023 by scarp15

[ollypenrice]

So what is the endgame of these laws? Nobody allowed out after bedtime?

Does camping only happen at night? Would it be OK to lie down and sleep during the day and to walk at night?

Can camping be meaningfully defined?

Olly

[teoria_del_big_bang]

On 13/01/2023 at 18:23, Beulah said:

In my line of work it is astonishing to see how much human detritus is left in the landscape

Unfortunately you are so right and how shameful on mankind is this ?
I know to some leaving a few empty cans behind or a Mc Donald's bag full of rubbish behind is small fry in the world of seas full of plastic but how hard is it just to bring your own rubbish home ?
Unfortunately its the same everywhere, I go fishing a lot and saddens me to see what other anglers leave behind, I end up taking twice the rubbish home as I just cannot bear to look at the stuff others left behind. I do not understand why you would not feel good about leaving some part of the countryside just as it was before your intrusion. Its so easy.
Better stop now I can feel my BP going up.

Steve

[saac]

I can't comment on the situation in Dartmoor as I don't have any real knowledge of the area. In Scotland however the problem is not with the estates or what they do with their land re population of deer.  These populations are managed. The problem as I have seen it over the past 30 years or so is simply the growth in human footfall  facilitated by tourism.  An overly romanticised PR effort on behalf of Scottish Tourist Board/Visit Scotland aided and abetted by the movie industry (how many times must the Old Man of Storr feature)  has resulted in trashing of the countryside.  Outsized vehicles blocking single lane roads, far too many feet trampling on areas of special scientific interest, the Cairngorm plateau damaged beyond repair, human waste scattered on mountain and woodland trails and the detritus of human activity left at campsite and wild places (whole tents).  This is nothing short of "rape" of the land I use that word with caution but it is.  Sorry, but this is not deer or managed estates that are causing this , this is simply people and far too many of them in a small area.  It's time we ramp up tourist tax as is being considered in the major cities such as Edinburgh and even reconsidered controlled access by permit to the Scottish mountains. John Muir would be appalled to see how we are treating our wilderness now. 

Jim 

Edited February 7, 2023 by saac

[scarp15]

1 hour ago, saac said:

I can't comment on the situation in Dartmoor as I don't have any real knowledge of the area. In Scotland however the problem is not with the estates or what they do with their land re population of deer.  These populations are managed. The problem as I have seen it over the past 30 years or so is simply the growth in human footfall  facilitated by tourism.  An overly romanticised PR effort on behalf of Scottish Tourist Board/Visit Scotland aided and abetted by the movie industry (how many times must the Old Man of Storr feature)  has resulted in trashing of the countryside.  Outsized vehicles blocking single lane roads, far too many feet trampling on areas of special scientific interest, the Cairngorm plateau damaged beyond repair, human waste scattered on mountain and woodland trails and the detritus of human activity left at campsite and wild places (whole tents).  This is nothing short of "rape" of the land I use that word with caution but it is.  Sorry, but this is not deer or managed estates that are causing this , this is simply people and far too many of them in a small area.  It's time we ramp up tourist tax as is being considered in the major cities such as Edinburgh and even reconsidered controlled access by permit to the Scottish mountains. John Muir would be appalled to see how we are treating our wilderness now. 

Jim 

Jim do you happen to work for a Scottish estate? Maybe the solution is not just to erect deer fences but human fences to, with gated entrance if you pay a fee. 

It is factually incorrect. The deer population has exploded in Scotland, it has doubled in the past thirty years. There are no natural predators, some estates will manage the deer numbers other do not; as part of their business sporting interests.

There are good examples of well managed estates such as those under the custodian of John Muir Trust  -  which I trust as you made a reference that you support. There is excellent land management, regeneration happening in Glen Feshie and the other side of the Cairngorms at Mar Lodge. There are poor examples to - estates have to take responsibility. 

As far as I am concerned you have exaggerated the hiker impact on this landscape. New networks of bulldozed estate roads penetrating deep into the hills, industrialising such areas as part of the Monadh Laith with wind farms and access roads etc are impactful not hikers feet. 

As someone who enjoys walking in these wild places and seeking solitude, I do not comprehend anything that you describe. 

There are many very established economic advantages to local communities for hill walkers, cyclists and climbers visiting to their locations. I know I am planning on a multi day hike soon, catching a train, last night will be in a bunk house and pub meals. 

  

 

 

[pipnina]

1 hour ago, saac said:

I can't comment on the situation in Dartmoor as I don't have any real knowledge of the area. In Scotland however the problem is not with the estates or what they do with their land re population of deer.  These populations are managed. The problem as I have seen it over the past 30 years or so is simply the growth in human footfall  facilitated by tourism.  An overly romanticised PR effort on behalf of Scottish Tourist Board/Visit Scotland aided and abetted by the movie industry (how many times must the Old Man of Storr feature)  has resulted in trashing of the countryside.  Outsized vehicles blocking single lane roads, far too many feet trampling on areas of special scientific interest, the Cairngorm plateau damaged beyond repair, human waste scattered on mountain and woodland trails and the detritus of human activity left at campsite and wild places (whole tents).  This is nothing short of "rape" of the land I use that word with caution but it is.  Sorry, but this is not deer or managed estates that are causing this , this is simply people and far too many of them in a small area.  It's time we ramp up tourist tax as is being considered in the major cities such as Edinburgh and even reconsidered controlled access by permit to the Scottish mountains. John Muir would be appalled to see how we are treating our wilderness now. 

Jim 

Sadly I think it's true. While I wish this not to be misconstrued, I do believe humans have managed to violently overpopulate and we would have been better off ecologically plateauing about 5BN people ago, which lines up roughly with what our planet could have provided for us without the use of fertilisers (originally bird poo scooped from islands and mined in a manner most irresponsible which would have led to the famine of billions if not for the discovery of synthesized fertilisers prior to WW1).

We consume food in volumes that could never exist via "natural" means, much of which is grown on land claimed from ecosystems that are destroyed for farming, and then is fed to livestock (98KG of grain turns into 1KG of beef).

We package everything, and make so many of our daily materials out of stuff we cannot dispose of. Plastic recycling is little more than a fantasy as almost all plastics go un-recycled and end up burned or in landfill eventually (many poor nations are effectively poisoned as richer nations pay them to take their plastic waste, those nations then have little choice but to burn it, which releases extremely toxic chemicals). Even PLA, which is made of corn starches, cannot be biodegraded as advertised in nature, it requires enzymes that are artificial and high temperatures. Plus, every PLA on the market is packed with additives or is even an "alloy" with other plastics which mean recycling and complete composting cannot happen in many cases, leaving us with incineration as the only option for proper disposal.

Air travel (which still uses lead additive fuel) allows us to visit places en masse, and ruin them just as fast. I would very much like to travel and meet my distant friends, but it's hard to compare my feelings and desire to see other lands to the damage I would/could cause in collaboration with everyone else doing the same.

I think this is only the tip of the iceberg for what we do to this planet, and ultimately ourselves. Plunder now, regret... Sometime in the future.

I have developed a lot of anxiety around my own environmental impact. Near enough everything I buy or throw away gives me this inkling of guilt, but it's not like I can just... Stop living? If I didn't buy things that would eventually turn into waste, I'd just sit here like a lemon for my whole life, never enjoying anything, as all my hobbies cause some kind of unspeakable damage, and I'm not much one for reading and gardening is something you can only do so much of in a day, if you have a garden.

 

I apologize for being so morbid but it's what weighs on me whenever ecological / environmental happenings get discussed 😕

[scarp15]

Getting back on topic; some maybe interested in supporting this. 

Save Dartmoor Backpack Camping - Appeal Fundraiser (Official) - JustGiving

[saac]

20 hours ago, pipnina said:

I apologize for being so morbid but it's what weighs on me whenever ecological / environmental happenings get discussed 😕

I don't think you need to apologise, I think you have expressed heartfelt views that are probably shared by many, including myself.  The problem isn't a singular issue and it certainly isn't a personal one. Collectively we have grown a system, a way of life , that is simply unsustainable. It's a system that has been sleepwalking us into the position we now find. It's so tightly integrated with our modern life that God only knows how we are to change it. I personally think that it is going to be incredibly difficult  -  how do we break for example the consumer urge that we all enjoy; and let's be honest we do enjoy it. And how do we break that consumer linkage to our economy and the growth cycle which pays for advances and improvements that we all enjoy?  If there is any consolation I think that we are so incredibly creative that if there is a solution we will find it. For full declaration of interest, I'm an avid consumer myself, just having posted to the "what did the postman bring" thread with my latest purchase.  I've often thought that on a global scale we are very much like children, not fully aware what we are doing.  Small changes, lots of small changes , perhaps that is what we need. 

Jim

Edited February 8, 2023 by saac

[scarp15]

36 minutes ago, pipnina said:

Sadly I think it's true. While I wish this not to be misconstrued, I do believe humans have managed to violently overpopulate and we would have been better off ecologically plateauing about 5BN people ago, which lines up roughly with what our planet could have provided for us without the use of fertilisers (originally bird poo scooped from islands and mined in a manner most irresponsible which would have led to the famine of billions if not for the discovery of synthesized fertilisers prior to WW1).

We consume food in volumes that could never exist via "natural" means, much of which is grown on land claimed from ecosystems that are destroyed for farming, and then is fed to livestock (98KG of grain turns into 1KG of beef).

We package everything, and make so many of our daily materials out of stuff we cannot dispose of. Plastic recycling is little more than a fantasy as almost all plastics go un-recycled and end up burned or in landfill eventually (many poor nations are effectively poisoned as richer nations pay them to take their plastic waste, those nations then have little choice but to burn it, which releases extremely toxic chemicals). Even PLA, which is made of corn starches, cannot be biodegraded as advertised in nature, it requires enzymes that are artificial and high temperatures. Plus, every PLA on the market is packed with additives or is even an "alloy" with other plastics which mean recycling and complete composting cannot happen in many cases, leaving us with incineration as the only option for proper disposal.

Air travel (which still uses lead additive fuel) allows us to visit places en masse, and ruin them just as fast. I would very much like to travel and meet my distant friends, but it's hard to compare my feelings and desire to see other lands to the damage I would/could cause in collaboration with everyone else doing the same.

I think this is only the tip of the iceberg for what we do to this planet, and ultimately ourselves. Plunder now, regret... Sometime in the future.

I have developed a lot of anxiety around my own environmental impact. Near enough everything I buy or throw away gives me this inkling of guilt, but it's not like I can just... Stop living? If I didn't buy things that would eventually turn into waste, I'd just sit here like a lemon for my whole life, never enjoying anything, as all my hobbies cause some kind of unspeakable damage, and I'm not much one for reading and gardening is something you can only do so much of in a day, if you have a garden.

 

I apologize for being so morbid but it's what weighs on me whenever ecological / environmental happenings get discussed 😕

I do apologise as this is going wildly off topic. However you might be interested to learn that the EU is to impose a ban on what is termed 'forever chemicals'. PFAS are found in all manner of household items from non stick pans, medical equipment, clothing, cars etc. Links to health risk from cancer, hormonal dysfunction, weakened immunity and environmental damage. Regulation will take years to complete concerning all products but at least this process is likely to happen; imposed at within the EU. 

Yes we all have to look at our life styles and life choices for sure; thus I use the train more (arrived at a certain railcard age anyhow).

Now return back on topic.